PROGRESS REPORT FOR Ph. D.

PROGRAMME

Stability design of urban tunnelling under shallow depth and

mixed ground conditions using geotechnical and numerical
modelling study

Submitted

by

Kumar Ram
(Roll no.: 922MN5001)

Under the Supervision of

Dr. Sahendra Ram

DEPARTMENT OF MINING ENGINEERING

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, ROURKELA
ODISHA – 769 008
Contents
1. Introduction 2
2. Literature Review 3
2.1 TBM tunneling in mixed ground conditions 3
2.2. Mixed-face ground 4
2.3. Problems of TBM tunneling in mixed ground 5
3.0 Field Study 6
3.1 Geology of Study Area 7
3.2 Ground movement study 9
3.3 Mitigation against mixed ground condition 10
4.0 Conclusions 11
5. References. 13
1. Introduction
Tunnel boring machine (TBM) [Figure 1] is a mechanized excavation method that is widely
used in civil infrastructure tunnel project, such as metro, road, subway, and hydraulic pipelines
etc. It is an effective method for reducing accidents, geo-hazards, and environmental
preservation. (Liao et al., 2008; Almeida et al., 2010; Shen et al., 2014; Comodromos et al. 2014;
Benato and Oreste, 2015; Yagiz and Karahan, 2015; Shen et al. 2016; Ren et al. 2017; Wu et al.,
2015 & 2018). Traditional tunneling methods can sometimes destabilize the surrounding ground,
leading to geo-hazards such as landslides and collapses. Mechanized tunneling methods, such as
TBMs, can more accurately excavate tunnels, which can help to reduce the risk of geo-hazards
and for environmental preservation (Liao et al. 2009; Marshall 2012; Jiang and Yin 2012, 2014;
Klar and Klein 2014; Laver et al. 2016; Wu et al. 2017). The spacing of cutting tools in the
cutterhead is an essential component of the TBM since it affects cutting efficiency (Yin et al.
2014; Geng et al. 2016). To deal with different type of ground conditions such as cohesive soils
or blocky rocks ,the cutterhead is composed of different types of cutting tools such as scraper
bits and disc cutters. The scraper bit (Fig. 1b) can impose a thrust force on the cutting face when
cutting through soil (Yilmaz et al. 2007, Hatzor et al. 2010, Yin et al. 2018). The disc cutter can
impose a rolling force on the cutting face to grind integrated rock mass into small pieces or
fragments (Gertsch et al. 2007; Rostami 2008).

(a) TBM installed for tunnelling (b) Cutterhead of TBM

Figure 1. Tunnel boring machine (TBM).

The geological parameter influence the TBM performance (Barton, 2000; Barla and Pelizza,
2000; Laughton, 2005; Shahriar et al., 2008; Zhao and Gong, 2006; Zhao et al., 2007) [Table 1].
In favorable geological/ground conditions TBM achieve up to 10 m/h advancement rate (Barton,
2000). Favorable ground conditions are hardly found during urban tunneling project.
Unfavorable ground conditions, particularly mixed-face ground can poses significant challenges
for TBM tunneling in urban area. Mixed-face ground refers to geological formations that consist
of varying rock types, soil conditions, and groundwater levels within the same tunnel section.
This heterogeneous composition can significantly affect TBM performance i.e. lead to low
penetration rate, high additional cost, long downtime or even indefinite delay, high cutter tools
wear, steering difficulties, large water inflow, and ineffective cutting and increase the tunnel
instability risk to increase tunneling hazards or serious problem(Barla and Pelizza, 2000;
Laughton, 2005).

Table 1: Geological factors affecting the TBM tunneling

Ground conditions Operation
parameters
Mechanical properties: UCS, tensile strength, modulus, rock abrasivity, Thrust
soil cohesive strength, difference in mechanical properties between weak Torque
and strong component parts of mixed face

Geological formation and geometry of such formation: percentage of the RPM (Rotation
outcrop of each component type on the mixed face, size and distribution of per minute)
the cobblestone, blocks or spheroidal weathering stone, occurring
discontinuities

Hydrogeology properties: groundwater distribution and groundwater Support

pressure, permeability of the weak component part and interface Method

2. Literature Review
2.1 TBM tunneling in mixed ground conditions
The performance of TBM tunneling directly related to the excavation process by TBM cutters
and excavation efficiency are related to the soil/rock mass properties (Barton 2000; Barla and
Pelizza 2000; Arıog˘lu et al. 2002; Laughton 2005; Shahriar et al. 2008; Zhao and Gong 2006;
Zhao et al. 2007). The key issue for tunnel excavation by TBM is to match the mechanical
parameters of the grounds and the operational parameters of the machines. An attempt is made to
visualize unfavorable/mixed/adverse ground conditions considering:

 Mixed-face ground definition, classification and influencing factors.

 Detailed description of the main problems related to TBM tunneling under mixed-
face conditions.
 Further research to be conducted for better coping with these problems is emphasized.

2.2. Mixed-face ground

From a geological viewpoint, the mixed ground conditions are defined as the simultaneous
occurrence of two or more geological formations (Fig. 2) with remarkably different properties in
rock/soil mass, engineering geology as well as hydrogeology, or the same geological formation
with different weathering grades. Specifically, for TBM tunneling, Büchi (1992) and Toth et al.
(2013) states that ‘‘The term mixed-face conditions are used when the tunnel face consists of at
least two rock types with completely different bore ability-in simple terms a mix of soft and hard
rock’’, and suggests the Uniaxial Compress Strength (UCS) as a direct reference for the bore
ability of rock. Based on this conception, a definition of mixed-face conditions as the difference
in UCS between the weakest and the strongest layer of a minimum of 1:10, has apparent gained
some acceptance. (Steingrimsson et al., 2002; Zhao et al., 2007; Toth et al., 2013).

The mixed-face ground conditions can be generally classified into following three categories:
(i) Layered or banded ground formed by sedimentary beddings, dykes, faults or shear
zones.

(ii) Interface ground of soil and rock, typically weathered materials above bedrocks.

(iii) Mixed face with cobbles or core stones surrounded by soils or soft formation.
 (a) Hard and fresh granitic gneissic rock face (b) Completely weathered granitic gneissic (c) Interface ground of fresh granitic gneissic rock
and soil face

Figure 2. Different types of mixed ground conditions.

2.3. Problems of TBM tunneling in mixed ground
Generally, the problems encounter during TBM tunneling in mixed-face grounds on the
interaction between the TBM cutter/cutter head and the excavation surface. Due to conspicuous
difference in mechanical properties of various geological formations at the excavation surface,
the cutters working on the stronger part of the surface take up more thrust than those on the
weaker part, leading to uneven pressure on the tunnel face. The uneven face pressure, as well as
the intense vibrations induced by cutters rotating from soft soil to hard rock, can lead to
extremely abnormal cutter wear and face stability problem, including over-excavation at the
tunnel face in soil or weak formations, leading to settlement and ground collapse, creating
problems, especially for the built-up areas (Dudt, J.P., Delisio, A., 2016). The mixed-face
conditions is generally accompanied with abundant groundwater due to high permeability of the
interface between different formations, which highly affect face stability, causing difficulties in
muck conveying and tunnel support (Zhao et al., 2007). Further, large pebbles and core stones
that are not fragmented sufficiently in the mixed-face ground can block muck movement in the
cutter head chamber as well as in the conveyor system and ground settlement is also a typical
problem (Fig. 3) during TBM tunneling in mixed-face grounds (Luo S, Zhang H R, 2010). Some
of the problems are summarized as follows:

 Instability to maintain face pressure during tunneling

 Sinkholes
 Face pressure loss due air leakage on surface
 Excavation speed of tunneling is affected
 Abnormal tool wear, especially disc cutters and soft tools
 Wear and tear of mixing arms and other parts of the TBM
 Increased frequency of cutter head intervention
 TBM operating parameters cannot be maintained
  Clogging
 Slurry Blowouts on the surface.

(a) Sinkhole at portal of Tunnel (b) Sinkhole on the road in Tunnel alignment

(c) Flat Wearing (d) Broken cutter discus (e) Mushroom shaped (e) Hub damages

Figure 3. Different types of problems encounter in mixed-face ground conditions.

3.0Field Study
Phase-2 of Bangalore Metro Rail Project consists of four extensions to the existing lines and two
new lines with a total length of 72.095 km and 61 stations, in which 12 are underground. Phase-2
includes the extension of the two Phase-1 corridors, as well as the construction of two new lines.
One of the new line is 21.25 km Gottigere – Nagawara line (Fig. 4). The line is mostly
underground (13.79 km), but also has a 6.98 km elevated and 0.48 km at-grade sections and all
21.25 km stretches divided into four packages, known as RT-01, RT-02, RT-03 and RT-04
(BMRCL/Phase-2/Reach-6/UG/TNL&STN/(R6-CC-02)-RT 03/2018/38 Dated 26.6.2018).
Figure 4. Tunnel alinement map -Shivajinagar to Cantonment
One of the Package (RT-03) starts at approx. Ch. 13938.328m at Shivaji Nagar Station and ends
Ch. 16822.521m at Tannery Road station. It covers approximately 2.884 km of bored
underground tunneling work and tunnel depth ranges from 10 to 16 meter below the ground level
in dense populated area.

3.1 Geology of Study Area

The geology of the project area representing three billions years old peninsular granitic gneissic
having metamorphic origin comprises Quartz, Plagioclase, K-Feldspar and Biotite minerals and
having complex structure in nature. The rock showing very fine to coarse grained usually grey
color and having banded and well foliated granitic gneisses with enclave of older basic rock to
residual soil has found.

The detailed geotechnical investigation was carried out in this package before starting the TBM
mining, and it shows mixed geological condition across the entire stretches of this project area
(Fig. 5 and Table 2).

The main strata in tunnel alinement is granitic gneiss. The granitic gneisses are mainly of
migmattitic type, highly banded varying in composition from granite to diorite and having
several degree of weathering.

The strata in tunnel alignment area is considered as five levels; residual soil, completely
weathered (W5), highly weathering (W4), and moderately weathered (W3) slightly weathering
(W2) and fresh rock (W1) (IS code: 4464-1985)
In general, it is the soil stratum consisting of 1 to 4 m of filled up soil below the existing ground
level followed by a mixture of silt and clay of low plasticity or clay or silty sand extending to
depth from 4 to 24 m by rock stratum. Rock level is varying all along the alignment of entire
package and the water table varies from 1 to 18 m below the ground level.

The stratigraphy of the entire package is generally classified into four sub-divisions: -

1. Filled up soil
2. Residual soil
a) Clay or silt of Low to Intermediate Plasticity
b) Clayey-Silt sand or Clayey sand
c) Very dense silty sand or Soft rock
3. Highly Weathered granitic gneissic rock
4. Moderately weathered to fresh hard granitic gneissic rock.

Section 1-1

Section 1-2
Figure 5. Geological longitudinal profile along Section 1 -1 and Section 1 -2. Cant to
Shivajinagar.
Table 2 Geological profile tunnel sections Shivajinagar and Cantonment station

Section Chainage (m) Length (m) Overlying strata description

The overlying formations consists of
different layers namely, filled
Section 1 -1 13938.328 to 14472 533.672 soil/material, clayey sand and weathered
rock with lenses of silty sand and clayey
silt
The substratum consists of different
Section 1-2 14472 to 14793.295 321.295 layers namely, fill, weathered rock and
hard rock with lenses of soft rock

3.2 Ground movement study

In urban tunneling, the main objective of ground movement monitoring is to minimize ground
displacements in order to protect nearby structures and utilities. For achieving this objective,
high degree of precision required for measured ground deformations . It is necessary to (a)
minimize inward ground deformation at the excavation face (b) by installing a pre-cast lining as
quickly as is practical, typically with an invert closure, and (c) Primary and Secondary grouting
work should be complete as soon as possible, especially when tunnel wall convergences continue
to grow over time.

In Bangalore metro phase-2 projects, instruments mounted or operated (Table 3) from the
surface of the ground or inside the tunnel are used to measure deformation. Instruments located
on the ground surface can be installed prior to tunnel excavation in the desired area. As a result,
their proper operation can be confirmed, and numerous zero-load measurements can be
conducted to validate their level of accuracy (by the variance of the zero-load readings). The
tunnel face (from approximately one tunnel diameter front of the face to approximately 1.5
diameters) is where the majority of earth deformation occurs. As a result, monitoring devices put
on the tunnel wall (e.g., optical reflector targets) or in the ground (e.g., borehole rod
extensometers) should be installed as soon as feasible. Unfortunately, the minimum distance of
instrument placement from the tunnel face is 2-4 meters due to inevitable interference.
 Name of Instrument Installation Purpose of Instrumentation
location
Ground Settlement Marker Surface Measuring vertical (up/down) movement
Building Settlement Building/Structure Measuring building movement in up and
Marker down direction
Extensometers Surface Vertical convergence of rock/soil at
different depth
Inclinometers Surface Lateral ground movement
Survey Targets(BRT) Structure Movement of structures
Tilt Meters Building/Structure Tilting of structure in Incline direction
Piezometers Surface Measure groundwater levels or pressures
Table 3 Instrument installation position and their purpose to monitor deformation during the
Tunneling -

Ground Settlement _Array E (CMRS-PTTYT Tunnel)

30 Alert
25 Action
20 Alarm
15 CMRS-PTYT-
10 GSM62
5 CMRS-PTYT-
GSM63
MENT(mm)

0 CMRS-PTYT-
SETTLE-

-5 GSM64
-10 CMRS-PTYT-
GSM65
-15
Alert
-20
Action
-25 Alarm
-30
15-Jan-22
25-Jan-22
4-Feb-22
14-Feb-22
24-Feb-22
6-Mar-22

5-Apr-22

5-May-22
15-May-22
25-May-22

14-Jun-22
24-Jun-22

14-Jul-22
24-Jul-22
3-Aug-22
13-Aug-22
23-Aug-22
2-Sep-22
12-Sep-22
22-Sep-22

12-Oct-22
22-Oct-22
1-Nov-22
11-Nov-22
21-Nov-22
1-Dec-22
11-Dec-22
5-Jan-22

16-Mar-22
26-Mar-22

15-Apr-22
25-Apr-22

4-Jun-22

4-Jul-22

2-Oct-22

DATE

Figure 6. Ground Settlement graphs

CMRS- CMRS- CMRS-

CMRS-PTYT-
Date PTYT- Settlement Settlement PTYT- Settlement PTYT- Settlement
GSM63
GSM62 GSM64 GSM65
Initial 912.536 912.621 912.519 912.431
 5-Jan-22 912.536 0 912.621 0 912.519 0 912.431 0
31-Jan-22 912.536 0 912.621 0 912.519 0 912.431 0
1-Feb-22 912.536 0 912.621 0 912.519 0 912.431 0
28-Feb-22 912.534 -2 912.620 -1 912.520 1 912.431 0
1-Mar-22 912.534 -2 912.620 -1 912.520 1 912.431 0
31-Mar-
912.534 -2 912.620 -1 912.520 1 912.431 0
22
1-Apr-22 912.534 -2 912.620 -1 912.520 1 912.431 0
30-Apr-
912.534 -2 912.620 -1 912.517 -2 912.430 -1
22
2-May-22 912.534 -2 912.620 -1 912.517 -2 912.430 -1
31-May-
912.534 -2 912.620 -1 912.517 -2 912.430 -1
22
1-Jun-22 912.534 -2 912.620 -1 912.517 -2 912.430 -1
30-Jun-22 912.534 -2 912.620 -1 912.518 -1 912.431 0
1-Jul-22 912.534 -2 912.620 -1 912.518 -1 912.431 0
31-Jul-22 912.534 -2 912.620 -1 912.518 -1 912.431 0
1-Aug-22 912.534 -2 912.620 -1 912.518 -1 912.431 0
31-Aug-
912.534 -2 912.620 -1 912.518 -1 912.431 0
22
1-Sep-22 912.534 -2 912.620 -1 912.518 -1 912.431 0
30-Sep-22 912.534 -2 912.620 -1 912.518 -1 912.431 0
1-Oct-22 912.534 -2 912.620 -1 912.518 -1 912.431 0
31-Oct-22 912.534 -2 912.620 -1 912.518 -1 912.431 0
1-Nov-22 912.534 -2 912.620 -1 912.518 -1 912.431 0
10-Nov-
912.534 -2 912.620 -1 912.518 -1 912.431 0
22
21-Nov-
912.534 -2 912.620 -1 912.518 -1 912.431 0
22
30-Nov-
912.534 -2 912.620 -1 912.518 -1 912.431 0
22
Table 4. Ground Settlement Array data

Building Settlement Graph

40
30 Alert
Action
20 Alarm
10 UL303-
BS397
0 UL303-
MENT(m

-10 BS398
UL303-
TLE-
SET-

-20 BS399
m)

-30 UL303-
BS400
-40 Alert
Action
4-Apr-22

2-May-22
16-May-22
30-May-22
13-Jun-22
27-Jun-22
11-Jul-22
25-Jul-22
8-Aug-22
22-Aug-22
5-Sep-22
19-Sep-22

17-Oct-22
31-Oct-22
14-Nov-22
28-Nov-22
12-Dec-22
26-Dec-22
18-Apr-22

3-Oct-22

DATE

Figure 7. Building Settlement graphs

Table 5. Building Settlement graphs

 UL303- Settleme UL303- Settleme UL303- Settleme UL303- Settleme
Date
BS397 nt BS398 nt BS399 nt BS400 nt
Initial 916.639 916.650 916.669 916.677
4-
Apr- 916.639 0 916.650 0 916.669 0 916.677 0
22
30-
Apr- 916.639 0 916.650 0 916.669 0 916.677 0
22
2-
May- 916.639 0 916.650 0 916.669 0 916.677 0
22
31-
May- 916.638 -1 916.650 0 916.669 0 916.677 0
22
1-
Jun- 916.638 -1 916.650 0 916.669 0 916.677 0
22
30-
Jun- 916.638 -1 916.650 0 916.669 0 916.677 0
22
1-Jul-
916.638 -1 916.650 0 916.669 0 916.677 0
22
31-
Jul- 916.638 -1 916.650 0 916.669 0 916.677 0
22
1-
Aug- 916.638 -1 916.650 0 916.669 0 916.677 0
22
31-
Aug- 916.637 -2 916.650 0 916.668 -1 916.677 0
22
2-
Sep- 916.637 -2 916.650 0 916.668 -1 916.677 0
22
27-
Sep- 916.637 -2 916.650 0 916.668 -1 916.677 0
22
1-
Oct- 916.653 14 916.665 15 916.677 8 916.677 0
22
31-
Oct- 916.656 17 916.668 18 916.677 8 916.677 0
22
1-
Nov- 916.656 17 916.668 18 916.677 8 916.677 0
22
10-
Nov- 916.656 17 916.668 18 916.677 8 916.677 0
22
21-
Nov- 916.670 31 916.677 27 916.684 15 916.680 3
22
30- 916.669 30 916.677 27 916.684 15 916.680 3
Nov-
22
1-
Dec- 916.669 30 916.678 28 916.684 15 916.680 3
22
2-
Dec- 916.669 30 916.678 28 916.684 15 916.680 3
22
3-
Dec- 916.670 31 916.678 28 916.684 15 916.680 3
22
4-
Dec- 916.670 31 916.678 28 916.684 15 916.680 3
22
5-
Dec- 916.670 31 916.679 29 916.684 15 916.680 3
22
6-
Dec- 916.670 31 916.679 29 916.684 15 916.680 3
22
7-
Dec- 916.670 31 916.679 29 916.684 15 916.680 3
22
8-
Dec- 916.670 31 916.679 29 916.684 15 916.680 3
22
9-
Dec- 916.670 31 916.679 29 916.684 15 916.680 3
22
10-
Dec- 916.670 31 916.679 29 916.684 15 916.680 3
22
11-
Dec- 916.670 31 916.679 29 916.684 15 916.680 3
22
12-
Dec- 916.670 31 916.679 29 916.684 15 916.680 3
22
13-
Dec- 916.670 31 916.679 29 916.684 15 916.680 3
22
14-
Dec- 916.670 31 916.679 29 916.684 15 916.680 3
22
15-
Dec- 916.670 31 916.679 29 916.684 15 916.680 3
22
16-
Dec- 916.670 31 916.679 29 916.684 15 916.680 3
22
17-
Dec- 916.670 31 916.679 29 916.684 15 916.680 3
22
18-
916.670 31 916.679 29 916.684 15 916.680 3
Dec-
 22
19-
Dec- 916.670 31 916.679 29 916.684 15 916.680 3
22
20-
Dec- 916.670 31 916.679 29 916.684 15 916.680 3
22

Figure 8 Instrument location from ring number 174 to 200.

In the above graphs and data table(Figure 6&7 and Table 4&5 respectively) shows that the
immediate settlement is observed, when TBM forthcoming such as the monitoring locations
(Figure 8)GSM62, GSM63,GSM64 ,GSM65 and Building settlement points UL303-BS397,
UL303-BS398, UL303-BS399 , UL303-BS400. This settlement is stable after installation of pre-
cast concrete segment and grouting through tail shield of the TBM.
3.3 Mitigation against mixed-face ground condition

While executing the mining operations for Ring No 97 at cutter head chainage
14649.662(Figure-10), a sink hole was observed with maximum approx. dimensions as 3 Rmt
Length ,1.8 m Width and 1.5m Depth. The location of sinkhole was 1.243 Rmt behind the cutter
head location observed on Sultanti Gunta Road.

After formation of sinkhole, cavities was filled with M5 grade of lean concreate and sand, then
after filling of cavities, Dynamic Cone Penetration Test using for assessment of disturb or
unstable subsurface soil zone. Dynamic Cone Penetration Test is simple machine for probing the
soil strata. DCPT result consist of number of blow count with respect to penetration depth to
obtain qualitative and quantitative data on the soil resistance to penetration and in particular to
determine the compactness of soil shown in fig.12 (Stefanoff et al. 1988).

After Assessment of disturb zone, the ground improvement work was carried out. Ground
improvement technique considered is a permeation grouting technique wherein chemical grout is
injected in the soil stratum to improve its strength and minimize the seepage and air loss. The
chemical grout was prepared by mixing of sodium silicate with cement grout (grout ratio 3:1).
The mixture of grout was forming gel from 6 minutes to 7 minutes. The approximate mix
proportion for making gel will be 1:1 for sodium silicate to cement grout. The 40% sodium
silicate was diluted in 60% water.

Grout holes G1 to G13 (figure-8) designed around the unstable area/sinkhole. In this holes TAM
pipe (50 mm dia. 10-bar pressure) installed using ROC drilling machine up to the depth of 8 to 9
meter side of the TBM and 16 mts infront of TBM face(figure no-10). The diameter of the hole
is 89 mm. After installation of, 50 mm dia TAM grout pipes primary grout filled in surrounding
of the pipe with water to cement ratio of 3:1. The grouting was be carried out by two TW-7 grout
pumps with pressure up to six bar pressure. The OPC grade-53 with 40% sodium silicate
suspension used for the grouting. In parallel to the grouting operation, the cutter head chamber of
the TBM was filled with bentonite slurry and cutter head regularly rotated along with slight
sliding of shields so that shield does not get struck due to grouting. After completion of grouting
work, tunneling excavation was resumed.
Figure 9. Grout hole location (G1 to G13) and DCPT blow compression graph of pre and post
grouting
Immediate settlement in residential area lead to major accident and life loss. To avoid this major
accident and life loss, following measures taken during TBM tunneling-

1) Increase the frequency of ground movement monitoring and increase ground-monitoring

point (Instrumentation) in close spacing to take ground settlement readings.
2) Dynamic Cone Penetration Test (DCPT) carried out in advance in tunnel alinement to
identify the weaker soil zone
3) Grouting work carried out in weaker soil zone, identify during the DCP Test.
4) Secondary grounding work carried out from inside the permanent lining.
5) Measure vibration just above the cutter head in 5 min interval during the TBM operation
6) Probe drill at regular interval from inside the cutter head to conformation of face
condition.
Evacuation of building and traffic diversion along the tunnel alinement during the TBM
advancement

4.0 Conclusion
TBM tunneling in mixed geological conditions presents a challenge for tunnel construction,
because no single TBM tunneling method is suitable for all mixed geological conditions. For a
long tunnel section, the geological conditions are varying. The geological information obtained
during the tunnel investigation stage is limited. The related TBM design based on the geological
information cannot solve all the uncertain problems to be encounter during TBM tunneling

However, the goal is always to achieve highly efficient and safe TBM tunneling. TBM tunneling
involves three specific processes, i) excavation at tunnel face, ii) the movement of machine
through gripping the rock wall, and iii) stability and support of the tunnel opening. Therefore,
further research related to effective and safe TBM tunneling under mixed geological conditions
must be address-

I) Predication of probable sinkhole area and their mitigation

 II) Reduce the number of cutter tools damages.

III) To be Developed Vibration control measures during the TBM operation and reduces the
damages of surficial infrastructure/building.

IV) Enhancing Ground improvement technique before the tunneling to control the settlement.

References.
Barla, G., Pelizza, S., 2000. TBM tunnelling in difficult ground conditions. In: GeoEng2000 –
An International Conference on Geotechnical & Geological Engineering. Melbourne,
Australia, p. 20.
Barton NR, Lien R, Lunde J (1974) Engineering classification of rock masses for the design of
tunnel support. Rock Mech Rock Eng 6(4):189–236
Bosse Marc, C., 2005. Performance of EPB-TBM in Mixed Face Conditions. City of Edmonton
South LRT Extension: University Station to Health Sciences Station. University of
Alberta, Canada, p. 234.
Büchi, E.T., 1992. New TBM generation with 20” cutters – tunnelling experience at Klippen
Hydropower Sweden. In: TBM Symposium – Lucia 1992, Atlas Copco Stockholm,
BeFo Stiftelsen Bergteknisk Forskning, BK Bergsprengningskommiten, and Stockholm.
Dudt, J.P., Delisio, A., 2016. The, ‘‘penalty factors” method for the prediction of TBM
performances in changing grounds. Original Research Article. Tunn. Undergr. Space
Technol. 57, 195–200.
Krulc MA, Murray JJ, McRae MT, Schuler KL. Construction of a mixed face reach through
granitic rocks and conglomerate. In: Proceedings of the rapid excavation and tunneling
conference, Toronto; 2007. p. 928–42.
Liu XY. Causes for wearing of disc cutters of shield machines in mixed ground and
countermeasures. Tunnel Constr 2006;26(Supp. 2):77–80.
Liu LY. On the construction of TBM through the granite globular weathering body. Guangdong
Sci. Technol. 2010;19(4):180–2.
Luo S, ZhangH R. Discussion on prevention and control of delayed settlement induced by shield
tunneling in water-rich sandy cobble stratum in Chengdu. Tunnel Constr 2010;3:317–9.
Marinos PG, Novack M, Benissi M, Stoumpos G, Papouli D, Panteliadou M, Marinos V,
Boronkay K, Korkaris K. Assessment of ground conditions with respect to mechanized
 tunnelling for the construction of the extension of the Athens Metro to the city of
Piraeus. Bull Eng Geol Environ 2009; 68:17–26.
Osborne NH, Knight Hassell K, Tan LC, Wong RA. Review of the performance of the tunneling
for Singapore’s circle line project. In: World tunnel congress 2008-underground facilities
for better environment and safety, India; 2008. p. 1497–508.
Shahriar K, Sharifzadeh M, Hamidi JK (2008) Geotechnical risk assessment based approach for
rock TBM selection in difficult ground conditions. Tunn Undergr Space Technol
23(3):318–325
Schwarz H, Bote R, Gens A. Construction of a new metro line in Barcelona: design criteria,
excavation and monitoring system. In: Proceedings of the 5th international symposium
TC28, Amsterdam; 2005. p. 757–63.
Steingrimsson JH, Grøv E, Nilsen B. The significance of mixed-face conditions for TBM
performance. World Tunnell 2002;15(9):435–41.
Zhao J, Gong QM, Eisensten Z. Tunnelling through a frequently changing and mixed ground: a
case history in Singapore. Tunn Undergr Space Technol 2007;22(4):388–400.
Zhang KZ, Yu HD, Liu ZP, Xinmin Lai XM. Dynamic characteristic analysis of TBM
tunnelling in mixed-face conditions. Simul Model Pract Theory 2010;18:1019–31
Zhu WB, Ju SJ. Mix ground and shield tunneling technology in Guangzhou. In: Proceedings of
2005 Shanghai international forum on tunnelling, Shanghai; 2005. p. 165–73.

Challenges of Mixed-face Ground for TBM Tunneling

1. Uneven Cutting Forces: The contrasting properties of different ground types in mixed-
face conditions can lead to uneven cutting forces on the TBM's cutterhead. This uneven
distribution can strain the TBM's mechanical components and reduce its overall cutting
efficiency.
2. Reduced Penetration Rates: Transitioning between hard and soft rock formations can
significantly impact the TBM's penetration rate. Hard rock formations can cause
excessive wear on the cutters, while soft ground can lead to excessive muck
accumulation, both hindering the TBM's advance.
3. Groundwater Infiltration: The presence of groundwater in mixed-face conditions can
introduce additional challenges, such as ground instability, water ingress into the tunnel,
and potential damage to the TBM's electrical components.

Mitigating Strategies for Mixed-face Ground

1. Thorough Geological Investigations: Conducting comprehensive geological

investigations is crucial to accurately identify and map mixed-face ground conditions.
This information allows for tailoring TBM selection, cutterhead design, and tunneling
parameters to suit the specific ground conditions.
2. Adaptive TBM Operation: Implementing adaptive TBM operation strategies can help to
optimize cutting forces, penetration rates, and ground support measures in response to
changing ground conditions. This may involve adjusting cutterhead rotation speed,
thrust force, and muck removal procedures.
3. Ground Pre-treatment: In some cases, ground pre-treatment techniques, such as
grouting or soil stabilization, may be necessary to improve ground conditions before
TBM tunneling. This can enhance ground stability and reduce the risk of TBM damage.
4. Monitoring and Control Systems: Continuous monitoring of ground conditions, TBM
performance, and potential hazards using sensors and instrumentation is essential for
timely intervention and mitigation of risks.
5. Specialized TBM Selection: Selecting TBMs specifically designed for mixed-face
tunneling can significantly improve performance and reduce risks. These TBMs typically
feature adaptable cutterheads, effective muck removal systems, and robust mechanical
components.

By implementing these strategies, engineers and contractors can effectively manage

the challenges of mixed-face ground conditions and ensure successful TBM tunneling in
urban underground infrastructure projects.