Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 71 (2018) 494–504

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology

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

A simple approach for characterising tunnel bore conditions based upon MARK
pipe-jacking data
⁎
Wen-Chieh Chenga, , James C. Nib, Arul Arulrajahc, Hui-Wen Huangb
a
Institute of Tunnel and Underground Structure Engineering, School of Civil Engineering, Xi’an University of Architecture and Technology, Shaanxi 710055, China
b
Department of Civil Engineering, National Taipei University of Technology, Taipei 10608, Taiwan, ROC
c
Department of Civil and Construction Engineering, Swinburne University of Technology, Victoria 3122, Australia

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: There are several well-established jacking force models available for determining the jacking loads. However,
Normal contact pressure their ability to characterise the tunnel bore conditions is limited. A simple approach to characterise the tunnel
Back-analysed frictional coefficient bore conditions is proposed and applied to a case study where four sewer pipelines of the Shulin district sewer
Soil arching network in Taipei County, Taiwan were constructed to verify its validity. In this paper, four jacking force models
are reviewed. Based upon the given soil properties and pipe dimensions as well as the pipe buried depth, the
normal contact pressure (σ′) in each jacking force model and the measured frictional stress (τ) in each baseline
section are utilised for back-analysis of the frictional coefficient (μavg). The μavg values outside the range of
0.1–0.3 recommended for lubricated drives can be attributed to the increasing pipe friction resulting from ex-
cessive pipe deviation or ground closure or due to the gravel formation not being long enough to establish lower
face resistance or total jacking load. JMTA (Japan Microtunnelling Association) has indicated a further potential
use in assessment of the interface performance during pipe-jacking works.

1. Introduction
Jacking force prediction highly correlates with the design and se-
lection of a pipe-jacking system (Chapman and Ichioka, 1999; Sofianos
et al., 2004; Khazaei et al., 2004; Staheli, 2006; Barla et al., 2006; Shou
et al., 2010; Rahjoo et al., 2012; Choo and Ong, 2015; Cui et al., 2015;
Yen and Shou, 2015; Shen et al., 2016; Wham et al., 2016; Cheng et al.,
2017a,b). There are many well-established jacking force models avail-
able for guiding to the provision of jacking capacity (Rogers and Yonan,
1992; Kastner et al., 1996; Pellet-Beacour and Kastner, 2002; Rahjoo
et al., 2012). However, their ability to characterise the tunnel bore
conditions is limited. As tunnelling through the permeable ground,
ground closure can be regarded as one of the main factors to lead to
some difficulties in estimating the jacking loads. Jet-grouting tech-
nology may be used to enhance the shear strength and watertightness of
ground prior to tunnel excavation (Ni and Cheng, 2011a, 2014; Shen
et al., 2017). Additionally, misalignment stands for the angular devia-
tion between the central axes of successive pipes, and severe mis-
alignment can lead to a significant increase in the friction resistance
causing an increment of the jacking loads (Norris, 1992; Ni and Cheng,
2011b, 2012a; Kou et al., 2015; Namli and Guler, 2017).
In this study, a pipe-jacking data from four sewer pipelines of the
Shulin district sewer network in Taipei County, Taiwan was analysed
using the baseline technique. The specific objectives of this study are (i)
to review four well-established jacking force models, (ii) to propose a
simple approach that is capable of characterising the tunnel bore con-
ditions, and (iii) to determine the tunnel bore conditions by comparing
the back-analysed frictional coefficients to the recommended values.
2. Jacking force models
The four well-established jacking force models that were studied
are: (i) Japan Microtunnelling Association (JMTA, 2000), hereinafter,
referred to as JMTA, (ii) Ma Baosong (Ma, 2008), (iii) Shimada and
Matsui (Shimada and Matsui, 1998), and (iv) Pellet-Beaucour and
Kastner (Pellet-Beacour and Kastner, 2002). In the JMTA model, the
resistance at the cutting wheel, F0, is theoretically between active and
passive earth pressure and can be empirically correlated to the blow
count N-value (JMTA, 2000). The resistance along the pipe string, Fs,
considers two components; one from the friction at the pipe-soil in-
terface and the other from the pipe self-weight induced contact pres-
sure. In the Ma Baosong model, the face resistance, F0, has been as-
sumed to be equal to the K0 earth pressure against the cutting wheel,
while the friction resistance, Fs, takes the earth pressure acting upon the

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: s2428030@gmail.com, w-c.cheng@xauat.edu.cn (W.-C. Cheng).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2017.10.002
Received 21 June 2017; Received in revised form 10 October 2017; Accepted 13 October 2017
Available online 02 November 2017
0886-7798/ © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 W.-C. Cheng et al.

Table 1
Review of jacking force models.

Jacking force Japan Microtunnelling Association Ma Baosong (Ma, 2008) Shimada and Matsui (Shimada and Matsui, Pellet-Beaucour and Kastner (Pellet-Beacour and Kastner, 2002)
model (JMTA) (JMTA, 2000) 1998)

Face F0 = 10 × 1.32π × De × N F0 = 1/4 × π × De2 × [K 0 Σ(γi ′hi ) + γw hw] where K 0 = F0 = Pw × A where Pw = slurry pressure, A = F0= initial jacking or first load
resis- where De = outer pipe diameter, N coefficient of static soil pressure, hi = thickness of the soil in area of the tunnel face
tance = blow count N value of soil ith layer, γi ′ = density of the soil in ith layer, hw = distance of
(F0)
the groundwater table to the pipe axis, and γw = density of
water
Friction Fs = π × De × τ × L + ω × μ × L Fs = K × [μ × (2PV + 2PH + PB )] where Fs = [p × b × μ1 + Pw × μ 2 × (πD2−b)] × L Fs = μ × L × De × (π /2) × [(σEV + γDe /2) + K2 (σEV + γDe /2)]
resis- where τ = c′ + σ ′tanδ , PV = Kp × γ ′ × h × De × L , where b (contact width between the pipe and where K2 = thrust coefficient of soil arching acting on the pipe,
tance σ′ = γ′ × (De /2)/tanϕ′, c′ = soil bore) = 1.6× (Pu × kd × Ce ) for which with a suggested value of 0.3 (French Society for Trenchless
PH = γ ′ × (h + De /2) × De × L × tan2 (45°−ϕ′/2) , PB = w× L ,
(Fs) cohesion, σ ′ = normal contact Technology, 2006)
K = factor of safety (normally 1.2 is used), PV = vertical Pu = (D12−D22) × γc × 0.25 × π where D1 =

495
pressure acting upon the pipe, δ = pressure of soil above the top of the pipe, PH = lateral earth diameter of bore, D2 = outer diameter of pipe,
angle of wall friction in plane of pressure, PB = total weight of planned jacking pipeline, and γc = concrete density, kd = (D1 × D2) /(D1−D2) ,
sliding, γ ′ = soil density, L = pipe Kp = vertical earth pressure coefficient
Ce = (1−n12) /E1 + (1−n22) /E2 where n1 =
string length, ω = pipe self-weight,
poisson’s ratio of soil, n2 = poisson’s ratio of
and μ = frictional coefficient
concrete pipe, p (contact stress acting on the
pipe bottom) = 2Pu × [1−(x 2 / a2)]0.5 /(π × a) for
which a = b/2 and x = distance to either side of
centerline of the area of contact
Normal σ ′ = γ ′ × (De /2)/tanϕ′ + ω/(πDe ) De 2 ϕ′ ω σ ′ = 2Pu × [1−(x 2 / a2)]0.5 /(π × a) 2×C
σ ′ = Kp × γ ′ × h + γ ′ × h + ) + b × ⎛γ − ⎞
contact
( 2 ) × tan (45°− 2 2 × De ⎝ b ⎠ −2 × K × tanδ ×
× ⎛⎜1−e ⎟
σEV = ( hb ) ⎞ where b (influencing
2 × K × tanδ
pressure ⎝ ⎠
(σ′) π ϕ
silo width) = De × ⎡1 + 2tan −
⎣ ( 4 2 ) ⎤⎦
Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 71 (2018) 494–504
W.-C. Cheng et al. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 71 (2018) 494–504

Table 2
Empirical parameters used in each standard.

Empirical parameters Initial Terzaghi’s definition GB 50332 standard ATV A 161 standard ASTM F 1962 standard BS EN 1594 standard
(Japan) (China) (German) (North America) (British)

b (Silo width): m De × [1 + 2tan(45° − ϕ/2)] De × [1 + tan(45° − ϕ/ De × 3^0.5 1.5De De × [1 + 2tan(45° − ϕ/

2)] 2)]
δ (Angle of wall friction in plane ϕ 30° ϕ/2 ϕ/2 ϕ
of shear): deg.
K (Soil pressure coefficient) 1 tan (45 − ϕ/2)
2
0.5 tan2(45 − ϕ/2) 1 − sinϕ

pipe vertically and horizontally, respectively (Ma, 2008). The face re-
sistance, F0, is expressed as the initial thrust which depends upon the
slurry pressure. If pipes cannot be maintained to float in the lubricant,
the friction resistance, Fs, can be calculated from the elastic solution for
a solid elastic cylinder resting in a cylindrical cavity (Roark and Young,
1976; Milligan and Norris, 1996; Shimada and Matsui, 1998).
In the Pellet-Beaucour and Kastner model, the initial jacking or first
load is considered to be the face load, F0. The friction resistance, Fs, can
be calculated based upon the vertical soil stress on the pipe crown (σEV),
which is based on the active trap-door experiment (Terzaghi, 1936) and
represents the difference equation solution of the limit equilibrium of a
horizontal ground slice subjected to shear stress along the sliding planes
(Terzaghi, 1943). Cheng et al. (2017c) had conducted an investigation
into the effect of the arching phenomenon on the lateral retaining
structure displacement. Table 1 summarises the formulae for calcu-
lating the F0 and Fs as well as normal contact pressure (σ′) values, re-
spectively, in each model. The σEV value is not only affected by some
physical parameters, i.e., h, C, and γ, but also by empirical parameters,
i.e., K, b, and δ. These physical parameters can be determined with
some accuracy. However, determining these empirical parameters may
lead to some difficulties because they can vary largely from one author
to another. Table 2 lists the empirical parameters adopted in five
standards, (1) the initial Terzaghi’s definition used in Japan (Terzaghi,
1951), (2) the Chinese national standard GB 50332 (GB 50332-02,
2002), (3) the German standard ATV A 161 (German ATV rules and
standards, 1990), (4) the American standard ASTM F 1962 (ASTM,
2011), and (5) the British standard BS EN 1594 (BS, 2009). Their
comparison shall be discussed as follows.
3. An approach for characterising tunnel bore conditions
An approach proposed in this paper to characterise the tunnel bore
conditions is detailed as follows: (i) establish the baseline of jacking
forces, (ii) calculate the normal contact pressure based upon the given
soil properties, pipe dimensions, and pipe buried depth, (iii) extract the
measured frictional stress in each baseline section, (iv) back-analyse the
frictional coefficient (μavg) in each baseline section, and (v) determine
the tunnel bore conditions by comparing the back-analysed μavg values
to recommended values for lubricated drives.

BH-20 Fig. 1. Location of geological boreholes, geological profile and design

Drive C alignment.
Drive D

BH-03
BH-05
Drive B BH-04
LEGEND
Groundwater level
0 100 m Geological borehole
Residential building
Drive A
Surface backfill
BH-06
Gravelly sand layer
Silty sand layer

14
BH-20
BH-06 EL 11.879m BH-04
12 BH-05
EL 11.120m EL 10.821m
EL 10.866m BH-03
10 EL 9.335m

8
Elevation (m)

0
?
?
-2 ?
? Borehole log
? unavailable ?
-4 ? ?

-6

496
 W.-C. Cheng et al.
Gravel Sand
Coarse Medium Fine Coarse Medium Fine
100
90
Percent finer by weight (%)
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
10 1 0.1
Particle diameter (mm)
3.1. Project geological conditions
Five 15-m deep geological boreholes drilled from a backfill layer
through a silty sand layer into a dense to very dense, poorly-graded to
well graded sand and gravel layer were constructed, as shown in Fig. 1
(Ni et al., 2011, 2013; Ni and Cheng, 2012b). Despite the fine soil not
being a major component of clayey gravel or clayey sand, the perme-
ability and shear strength of these soil types are controlled by the clay
particles as a sufficient portion of clays can effectively separate each
sand particle (D’Appolonia, 1980). The piezometric level is at a depth of
4.8 m, as shown in Fig. 1.
3.2. Pipe-jacking works
The slurry pipe-jacking method was adopted to carry out the ex-
cavations of four pipe-jacking drives in the Shulin district in Taipei
County, Taiwan. The 2.65-m long shield head at 95.1 kN is equipped
with a 1.46-m long articulated steering section functioned by four
steering cylinders. The 0.92-m long trailing can at 19.6 kN is bolted on
to the shield head. During pipe-jacking works, bentonite slurry with a
unit weight of 10.8 kN/m3 was utilised to maintain the stability of the
cutting face and tunnel bore and also to pump tunnelling spoils to de-
cantation chambers which remove coarse particles from the tunnelling
spoils through a slurry circulation system. The tunnelling spoils col-
lected from the decantation chambers were used to prepare samples of
the particle size distribution (PSD) analysis based on testing standard
ASTM D422-63 (ASTM, 2002). The PSD curves of the samples are
shown in Fig. 2. A 1-m long, 1200-mm internal diameter reinforced
concrete pipe, with a thickness of 120 mm, was adopted in this project.
The tunnel bore was excavated using the 1500-mm diameter cutting
wheel. An overcut annulus of 30 mm was established using the smaller
concrete pipe of 1440 mm in diameter. A special bentonite lubricant
with 2% polymer was utilised to mitigate the impacts of loss of lu-
bricant while tunnelling in gravel formation. The four drives char-
acteristics are shown in Table 3 (after Cheng et al., 2017a,b).
3.3. Jacking force baseline establishment
Figs. 3–6 show the variation in the jacking force and torque of cutter
wheel at the four pipe-jacking drives. Pellet-Beacour and Kastner
(2002) reported that local variations of total jacking load are generally
linked to the varying face resistance and that the minima of total
jacking load correspond to very low face resistances. Thus, a line run-
ning through the minima of total jacking load is referred to as “baseline
of jacking forces” and can be utilised to distinguish the friction and face
resistances from the total jacking load. In this study, each jacking force
baseline section was attentively established based upon the minima of
Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 71 (2018) 494–504
Silt Fig. 2. Particle size distribution of tunnelling spoils for all pipe-jacking
Coarse Medium Fine Clay drives.
Drive A (GP)
Drive A (GP-GC)
Drive A (SW-SM)
Drive B (GP)
Drive B (GP)
Drive B (SP-SM)
Drive B (SP-SC)
Drive C (SP)
Drive D (SC)
Drive D (GW)
0.01 0.001
total jacking load, with the exception of the second section of gravel at
Drive C and the second section of silty gravel or silty sand at Drive D
where the excessive pipe deviation determined the baseline section
establishment. The measured frictional stress (τ) in each baseline sec-
tion and the normal contact pressure (σ′) in each jacking force model
would be utilised for back-analysis of the frictional coefficient (μavg).
The back-analysed μavg helped not only to assess both the soil-concrete
and lubricant-concrete interfaces performance but also to characterise
the tunnel bore.
In Drive A, the slurry shield spanned 73 m from an initial 5 m sec-
tion of gravel through a 62 m section of fine soil governed gravel or
sand deposit and a further 3 m section of gravel into a final 3 m section
of clay at a depth of 10.3 m (Fig. 3). The jacking force increased from
931 kN at 5 m distance to 1543 kN at 31 m distance while jacking into
the fine soil governed gravel or sand deposit from the gravel formation.
Then the jacking force dropped to 1029 kN, the same jacking force
between 6 and 13 m distance, at 67 m distance while returning to the
gravel formation. While jacking into the fine soil governed gravel or
sand deposit, the roller discs of the shield might sink into the cutting
face, leading to full contact between the cutting wheel and the ground,
thereby producing additional face resistance due to the increasing
contact area. The local variation of jacking force would give away when
driving back into the coarse soil from the fine soil governed gravel or
sand deposit.
The increases in the jacking force between 1 and 5 m distance and
between 67 and 70 m distance were most likely due to the pipe frictions
incurred while jacking in the two sections of gravel. Thus, the baseline
of jacking forces should consist of three sections, the first 5 m section,
5–67 m section, and final 67–70 m section. The jacking force in the first
baseline section averaged 36.8 kN/m, leading to the frictional stress of
8.1 kPa. The average jacking force in the following two baseline sec-
tions measured at 1.6 and 32.7 kN/m, respectively, corresponding to
the frictional stresses of 0.4 and 7.2 kPa, respectively.
The pipe-jacking of Drive B spanned 126 m within the alternating
layers of gravel formation and fine soil governed gravel or sand deposit
at a depth of 10.3 m (Fig. 4). Driving into the fine soil governed gravel
or sand deposit at 18–29 m distance led to an increase of 294 kN in the
jacking force and this increase gave away when driving back into the
gravel formation at 29 m distance. The jacking force increased again
while driving into the fine soil governed gravel or sand deposit at 45 m
distance from the gravel formation. The jacking force then decreased
when driving back into the gravel formation at 114 m distance.
Therefore, there were four sections; the initial 25 m (from 4 to 29 m)
section, 29–45 m section, 45–114 m section, and final 114–123 m sec-
tion, included in the baseline of jacking forces. The jacking force in the
four baseline sections averaged 0.4, 3.1, 2.1, and 5.4 kN/m, respec-
tively, inducing the frictional stresses of 0.09, 0.7, 0.5, and 1.2 kPa,
497
 W.-C. Cheng et al.

Table 3
Characteristics of the four pipe-jacking drives (after Cheng et al., 2017a,b).

Pipe-jacking drives A B C D

Geology Nearly 90% fine soil governed gravel or
sand deposit
Baseline section Section 1: 1–5 m distance in gravel;
Section 2: 5–67 m distance in fine soil
governed gravel or sand deposit;
Section 3: 67–70 m distance in gravel
Length: m 73
50% gravel formation and 50% fine soil
governed sand deposit
Section 1: 4–29 m distance in gravel;
Section 2: 29–45 m distance in gravel;
Section 3: 45–114 m distance in fine soil
governed gravel or sand deposit;
Section 4: 114–123 m distance in gravel
126
45% alternating layers of sand and gravel and 55% fine
soil governed gravel or sand deposit
Section 1: 2–8 m distance in gravel;
Section 2: 8–21 m distance in gravel;
Section 3: 21–40 m distance in gravel;
Section 4: 40–75 m distance in fine soil governed gravel
or sand deposit
75
20% gravel formation and 80% fine soil
governed gravel or sand deposit
Section 1: 6–11 m distance in gravel;
Section 2: 11–24 m distance in fine soil
governed gravel or sand deposit;
Section 3: 24–31 m distance in fine soil
governed gravel or sand deposit;
Section 4: 31–102 m distance in fine soil
governed gravel or sand deposit
102

498
Depth: m 10.3 10.3 10.8 10.8
Soil cover to outer pipe diameter 6.7 6.7 7 7
ratio (h/De)
Groundwater level: m 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Jacking alignment (straight or Straight Straight Straight Straight
curve)
Cutter face diameter: m 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5
Outer pipe diameter De: m 1.44 1.44 1.44 1.44
Measured initial face resistance: kPa 388 499 555 555
Pipe self-weight: kN/m 12.7 12.7 12.7 12.7
Buoyancy force: kN/m 17 17 17 17
Theoretical overcut annulus: litre/m 138 138 138 138
Average volume of lubricant 378 381 552 534
injected: litre/m
Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 71 (2018) 494–504
W.-C. Cheng et al. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 71 (2018) 494–504

2000 200 Fig. 3. Variation of jacking force and torque during tunnelling at drive A
Gravel Clay deposit or Gravel Clay and baseline of jacking forces.
1800 deposit fine soil governed gravel or sand deposit deposit deposit 180

1600 160

1400 140
Jacking force (kN)

favg=1.6 kN/m in
Section 2 (5-67 m) favg=32.7 kN/m in

Torque (A)
1200 favg=36.8 kN/m in 120
Section 3 (67-70 m)
Section 1 (1-5 m)
1000 100

800 80

600 60

400 Average face 40

Variation of torque
resistance
= 685.6 kN (initial contact Jacking force
200 pressure)/area of Baseline of jacking forces 20
cutter wheel = 388 kPa
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70
Jacked distance (m)

2000 200 Fig. 4. Variation of jacking force and torque during tunnelling at drive B
Gravel Gravel Fine soil governed Gravel Gravel and baseline of jacking forces.
1800 deposit deposit sand deposit deposit deposit 180
Fine soil governed Fine soil governed
1600 sand deposit sand deposit 160
favg=2.1 kN/m in
1400 favg=3.1 kN/m in Section 3 (45-114 m) 140
Jacking force (kN)

favg=0.4 kN/m in Section 2 (29-45 m)

Torque (A)
1200 Section 1 (4-29 m) 120
favg=5.4 kN/m in
1000 Section 4 (114-123 m) 100

800 80

600 60
Average face
400 resistance = 40
881.8 kN (initial contact Variation of torque
pressure)/area of Jacking force
200 cutter wheel = 499 kPa Baseline of jacking forces 20

0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
Jacked distance (m)

3000 6 7 9 11 13 200 Fig. 5. Variation of jacking force and torque during tunnelling at drive C
Deviation>60 mm 1 2 3 4 5 Buried wooden log and baseline of jacking forces.
2750 8 10 12 180
1 3 5 (odd number): Gravel deposit
2500 2 4 6 (even number): Fine soil governed gravel or sand deposit
160
2250 favg=0.5 kN/m in
Section 3 (21-40 m) 140
Jacking force (kN)

2000 favg=56.5 kN/m in

Torque (A)

1750 Section 2 (8-21 m) favg=12.3 kN/m in 120

Section 4 (40-75 m)
1500 Variation of torque
100
1250 Jacking force
Baseline of jacking forces 80
1000
60
750
favg=1.6 kN/m in 40
500 Section 1 (2-8 m) Average face
resistance = 980.8 kN (initial contact
250 pressure)/area of 20
cutter wheel = 555 kPa
0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Jacked distance (m)

respectively. tunnelling alignment. The jacking force increase, 771 kN, resulting from
Fig. 5 shows the pipe-jacking activities from Drive C spanning 75 m jacking through the gravel formation between 8 and 21 m distance, was
through a first 34 m gravel section into a 41 m fine soil governed gravel attributed to the excessive pipe deviation greater than a threshold value
or sand deposit at a depth of 10.8 m. Similar to previous two drives, the of 60 mm. The jacking force increased from 1773.8 to 2597 kN between
jacking force increased while driving into the fine soil governed gravel 40 and 51 m distance while driving into the fine soil governed gravel or
or sand deposit and decreased when returning to the gravel formation. sand deposit. Additionally, a buried wooden log encountered when
However, increase in the jacking force can also be caused either by driving in the fine soil governed gravel or sand deposit between 59 and
excessive pipe deviation or by buried obstructions along design 63 m distance geared up the jacking force to an even higher value of

499
W.-C. Cheng et al. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 71 (2018) 494–504

4000 200 Fig. 6. Variation of jacking force and torque during tunnelling at drive D
Deviation>60 mm Deviation>60 mm 6 Buried wooden log and baseline of jacking forces.
1 2 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 180
3500
1 3 5 (odd number): Gravel deposit 160
3000 2 4 6 (even number): Silt deposit or fine soil
governed gravel or sand deposit
140
Jacking force (kN)

2500

Torque (A)
favg=49.0 kN/m in 120
Section 3 (24-31 m)
Variation of torque
favg=3.5 kN/m in
2000 favg=18.1 kN/m in
Section 4 (31-102 m)
Jacking force 100
Section 2 (11-24 m) Baseline of jacking forces
80
1500
60
1000
40
Average face
500
favg=2.0 kN/m in resistance = 980.8 kN (initial contact 20
Section 1 (6-11 m) pressure)/area of
cutter wheel = 555 kPa
0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Jacked distance (m)

Table 4 180
Parameters adopted in the jacking force models.
160
Model parameters Value (Maximum) (Minimum)
140
Method 1 (JMTA)
120

pressure [kPa]
Normal contact
ϕ′ (Friction angle): deg. 34 (Gravelly soil)
26.3 (Clayey soil) 100
C′ (Cohesion of the soil): kPa 0
γ′ (Unit weight of the soil): kN/m3 10.09 (Gravelly soil) 80
8.03 (Clayey soil)
De (Outer diameter of the pipe): m 1.44 60
Method 2 (Ma Baosong)
40
Kp (Factor of the vertical soil pressure): kN/m3 0.3 (Gravelly soil)
0.5 (Clayey soil) 20
h (Soil height above the top of pipe): m 9.6 (Drives A & B)
10.1 (Drives C & D) 0
γ′ (Unit weight of the soil): kN/m3 10.09 (Gravelly soil)
8.03 (Clayey soil)
De (Outside diameter of the pipe): m 1.44
ϕ′ (Friction angle): deg. 34 (Gravelly soil)
26.3 (Clayey soil)
ω (Pipe self-weight per meter): kN/m 12.7

Method 3 (Shimada and Matsui)

D1 (Diameter of the bore): m 1.5 Fig. 7. Comparison of the calculated normal contact pressure between the jacking force
D2 (Outer diameter of the pipe): m 1.44 models.
Pu (Pipe self-weight per meter): kN/m 12.7
kd = (D1 × D2)/(D1 − D2) 36
E1 (Young’s modulus of the soil): kPa 22,373 (Gravelly 1300
soil) 400 LEGEND Given parameters:
8829 (Clayey soil) =10 kN/m 3,
JMTA D e=1.44 m,
n1 (Poisson’s ratio of the soil) 0.35 (Gravelly soil) 350 Ma Baosong =30 deg.,
0.49 (Clayey soil) Shimada and Matsui =12.7 kN/m,
300
pressure [kPa]
Normal contact

Terzaghi b=0.214 m
n2 (Poisson’s ratio of the pipe) 0.2
GB 50332
E2 (Young’s modulus of the pipe): kPa 40,000,000 250 ATV A 161
Ce = (1 − n12)/E1 + (1 − n22)/E2: kPa−1 4e−5 (Gravelly soil) ASTM F 1962
9e−5 (Clayey soil) 200 BS EN 1594
Soil prism
b = 1.6 × (Pu × kd × Ce)0.5 = 2 × a (Contact width 0.21 (Gravelly soil)
150
between the pipe and bore): m 0.32 (Clayey soil)
x (Distance to either side of the centerline of the area of 0 100
contact): m
pmax = 2Pu × [1 − (x2/a2)]0.5/(π × a) (Maximum 75.4 (Gravelly soil) 50
normal contact pressure acting on the pipe bottom): 50.9 (Clayey soil)
0
kPa
0 10 20 30 40 50
Method 4 (Pellet-Beaucour and Kastner) h/D e [-]
De (Outer diameter of the pipe): m 1.44
ϕ′ (Friction angle): deg. 34 (Gravelly soil) Fig. 8. Variation of normal contact pressure σ′ against h/De.
26.3 (Clayey soil)
C′ (Cohesion of the soil): kPa 0
γ′ (Unit weight of the soil): kN/m3 10.09 (Gravelly soil) 2793 kN. The jacking force then decreased to 2205 kN at 75 m distance
8.03 (Clayey soil) while re-entering the gravel formation. Thus, the beginning 6 m (from 2
h (Soil height above the top of pipe): m 9.6 (Drives A and B) to 8 m) section, 8–21 m section, 21–40 m section, and final 40–75 m
10.1 (Drives C and
section should be considered in determining the baseline of jacking
D)
forces. The average jacking force in the four baseline sections measured

500
W.-C. Cheng et al.
1 the soil arching factor (σ/γh) in Terzaghi and JMTA converged to the
LEGEND
JMTA
Ma Baosong
Soil arching factor / h [-]
0.8
Terzaghi
GB 50332
0.6
0.4
0.2
0 half the outer pipe diameter into account and considered fully devel-
0 10 20
h/De [-]
Fig. 9. Variation of soil arching factor σ/γh against h/De.
at 1.6, 56.5, 0.5, and 12.3 kN/m, respectively, leading to the frictional
stresses of 0.4, 12.5, 0.1, and 2.7 kPa, respectively.
The pipe-jacking activities for Drive D spanning 102 m from an in-
itial 17 m section comprising gravel and sand through a following 82 m
alternating layers of clayey gravel and silty sand into a final 3 m gravel
section at a depth of 10.8 m are shown in Fig. 6. The jacking force due
to the excessive pipe deviation being greater than the threshold value of
60 mm increased from 989.8 kN at 11 m distance to 1225 kN at 24 m
distance. A significant increase in the jacking force between 17 and
22 m distance was attributed to the varying face resistance resulting
from driving into the fine soil governed gravel or sand deposit. The
jacking force declined when re-entering the gravel formation at 31 m
distance. The jacking force between 31 and 45 m distance increased to
2842 kN owing to the combined effects of the excessive pipe deviation
greater than 60 mm and driving into the fine soil governed gravel or
sand deposit. Additionally, encountering the buried wooden log be-
tween 69 and 76 m distance led the jacking force to increase to a peak
of 3579 kN. The jacking force decreased when returning to the gravel
formation at 99 m distance. With the pipe friction incurred between 99
and 102 m distance, the jacking force finally slightly increased by
49 kN. Thus, the first 5 m (from 6 to 11 m) section, 11–24 m section,
24–31 m section, and final 31–102 m section would be included in the
baseline of jacking forces. The jacking force in the four baseline sections
averaged 2.0, 18.1, 49.0, and 3.5 kN/m, respectively, inducing the
frictional stresses of 0.4, 4.0, 10.8, and 0.8 kPa, respectively.
3.4. Calculated normal contact pressure
For the purpose of simplicity, one single stratum has been assumed
in calculations of the normal contact pressure (σ′). Considering the
groundwater table of 4.5 m depth below the ground surface, the σ′
value at the four drives can be yielded, respectively, through the con-
tact pressure equation of the four models (see Table 1) by substituting
the parameters listed in Table 4. The maximum and minimum of the σ′
value in each model are depicted in Fig. 7, together with the upper
bound value resulting from soil prism above the pipe. It can be seen
from Fig. 7 that the σ′ value varying from 13.8 to 14.8 kPa in JMTA was
the minimum amongst all the models, while in ASTM F 1962, the σ′
value varying from 101.7 to 122.2 kPa was the maximum. A calculation
sample is given in Fig. 8 for further clarification. It can be seen from
Fig. 8 that the σ′ value in ASTM F 1962, ATV A 161, GB 50332, and BS
EN 1594 increased slightly at small h/De and maintained at a constant
value at large h/De. The σ′ value in Ma Baosong increased linearly along
with the increasing h/De. The σ′ value in Terzaghi and JMTA as well as
Shimada and Matsui maintained at constant values of 26.9 and 15.3 as
well as 40.4, respectively, in all the h/De values. The two constant σ′
values from Terzaghi and JMTA, respectively, are due to the fact that
Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 71 (2018) 494–504
ATV A 161
constant value sooner than the other models (see Fig. 9) and the effect
ASTM F 1962 of soil arching shortly had a steady influence on the σ′ value. It is
BS EN 1594 known that the Shimada and Matsui model assumed a stable tunnel
bore and the calculation of σ′ value was not dependent upon the h/De
value, but upon the values of Pu and b. It can also be seen from
Given parameters: Fig. 8 that as h/De < 7, ASTM F 1962 was the maximum, while JMTA
=10 kN/m3,
De=1.44 m, was the minimum. These results matched with those shown in Fig. 7. As
=30 deg., ASTM F 1962 made a more conservative assumption that reduces the
=12.7 kN/m
mobilised shearing resistance along shearing bands by taking only half
the friction angle into account, it thus gave the highest estimation. On
the other hand, JMTA calculated the σ′ value by introducing the re-
duced weight of soil prism that takes the overburden height equal to
30 40 50
oped shearing bands. The two assumptions are regarded as the two
main reasons to lead to the lowest estimation.
3.5. Back-analysed frictional coefficient
As the jacking force at one end of a baseline section minus that at
the other end is equal to the pipe friction along the section, dividing the
pipe friction by the section length leads to the average jacking force
(favg). Dividing the favg value by the outer periphery of pipe yields the
measured frictional stress (τ). Thus, the frictional coefficient (μavg) can
be back-analysed through dividing the τ value by the σ′ value. The
values of σ′, favg, and τ are summarised in Table 5. In the first and final
sections at Drive A, the μavg values in JMTA were back-analysed to be
0.59 and 0.52, respectively (Table 6), largely in excess of the upper
limit of μ = 0.3 suggested by Stein et al. (1989). This indicates that
lubrication during pipe-jacking in the two sections of gravel at Drive A
was not effective, despite having nearly 2.7 times more lubricant in-
jected into the theoretical overcut (Table 3). In contrast with JMTA, the
other models reported the μavg values below the lower limit of μ = 0.1
(Stein et al., 1989). In fact, the higher μavg values of 0.59 and 0.52 were
caused by excessive pipe frictions incurred while jacking through the
two gravel sections where local collapse or ground closure occurred.
Thus, it can be deduced that JMTA provided the μavg values reflected
what was happened during tunnelling through the sections.
At Drive B, the μavg values from all the models were far below the
lower limit of μ = 0.1, suggesting that Drive B was very well-lubricated.
In the second section of gravel at Drive C, the μavg value in JMTA was
0.9 (Table 6), largely in excess of the upper limit of μ = 0.3, suggesting
that Drive C through the second section was not adequately lubricated.
In contrast to JMTA, the μavg values from the other models were within
the limits of 0.1 and 0.3 recommended by Stein et al. (1989) for lu-
bricated drives. The μavg value of 0.9, the highest of the μavg values
observed in this study, was most likely due to increasing pipe friction
resulting from the excessive pipe deviation greater than the threshold of
60 mm (Fig. 5). The μavg value from JMTA was in line with what was
observed while tunnelling through the second section at Drive C, while
the other models resulted in a misleading interference for estimation of
the μavg value.
In the second section of silty gravel or silty sand at Drive D, the μavg
value of 0.3 in JMTA matched with the upper limit of μ = 0.3 (Table 6),
indicating that Drive D through the second section was moderately
lubricated. Whereas the other models reported the μavg values below
0.1. In point of fact, based on the measured data, the μavg value of 0.3
was attributed to increasing friction resistance resulting from the pipe
deviation being greater than 60 mm (Fig. 6). Similar to the other drives,
JMTA reported the μavg values more realistic than the other models and
has shown a potential use in assessing the interface behaviour during
pipe-jacking works. Additionally, Drive D through the third section of
silty gravel or clayey gravel characterised by JMTA indicated in-
adequate lubrication, with the μavg value of 0.73 (Table 6). The μavg
value of 0.73 was the second highest of the μavg values observed in this
study. However, the reason to cause this higher μavg value was not due
501
W.-C. Cheng et al. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 71 (2018) 494–504

Table 5
Summary of (a) the average jacking forces and measured frictional stresss as well as calculated normal contact pressures based upon (b) JMTA, (c) Ma Baosong, (d) Shimada and Matsui,
(e) Terzaghi, (f) GB 50332, (g) ATV A 161, (h) ASTM F 1962, (i) BS EN 1594.

Pipe-jacking drives A B C D

(a)
Average jacking force favg: kN/m Section 1: 36.8 Section 1:0.4 Section 1: 1.6 Section 1: 2.0
Section 2: 1.6 Section 2:3.1 Section 2: 56.5 Section 2: 18.1
Section 3: 32.7 Section 3:2.1 Section 3: 0.5 Section 3: 49.0
Section 4:5.4 Section 4: 12.3 Section 4: 3.5
Measured frictional stress τ: kPa Section 1: 8.1 Section 1: 0.09 Section 1: 0.4 Section 1: 0.4
Section 2: 0.4 Section 2: 0.7 Section 2: 12.5 Section 2: 4.0
Section 3: 7.2 Section 3: 0.5 Section 3: 0.1 Section 3: 10.8
Section 4: 1.2 Section 4: 2.7 Section 4: 0.8

(b)
Calculated normal contact pressure σ′: kPa Section 1: 13.8 Section 1: 13.8 Section 1: 13.8 Section 1: 13.8
Section 2: 14.8 Section 2: 13.8 Section 2: 13.8 Section 2: 14.8
Section 3: 13.8 Section 3: 14.8 Section 3: 13.8 Section 3: 14.8
Section 4: 13.8 Section 4: 14.8 Section 4: 14.8

(c)
Calculated normal contact pressure σ′: kPa Section 1: 89.8 Section 1: 89.8 Section 1: 92.8 Section 1: 92.8
Section 2: 115.8 Section 2: 89.8 Section 2: 92.8 Section 2: 119.4
Section 3: 89.8 Section 3: 115.8 Section 3: 92.8 Section 3: 119.4
Section 4: 89.8 Section 4: 119.4 Section 4: 119.4

(d)
Calculated normal contact pressure σ′: kPa Section 1: 75.4 Section 1: 75.4 Section 1: 75.4 Section 1: 75.4
Section 2: 50.9 Section 2: 75.4 Section 2: 75.4 Section 2: 50.9
Section 3: 75.4 Section 3: 50.9 Section 3: 75.4 Section 3: 50.9
Section 4: 75.4 Section 4: 50.9 Section 4: 50.9

(e)
Calculated normal contact pressure σ′: kPa Section 1: 58.9 Section 1: 58.9 Section 1: 59.4 Section 1: 59.4
Section 2: 65.3 Section 2: 58.9 Section 2: 59.4 Section 2: 66.1
Section 3: 58.9 Section 3: 65.3 Section 3: 59.4 Section 3: 66.1
Section 4: 58.9 Section 4: 66.1 Section 4: 66.1

(f)
Calculated normal contact pressure σ′: kPa Section 1: 97.7 Section 1: 97.7 Section 1: 99.8 Section 1: 99.8
Section 2: 86.0 Section 2: 97.7 Section 2: 99.8 Section 2: 87.7
Section 3: 97.7 Section 3: 86.0 Section 3: 99.8 Section 3: 87.7
Section 4: 97.7 Section 4: 87.7 Section 4: 87.7

(g)
Calculated normal contact pressure σ′: kPa Section 1: 108.4 Section 1: 108.4 Section 1: 111.1 Section 1: 111.1
Section 2: 99.5 Section 2: 108.4 Section 2: 111.1 Section 2: 102.0
Section 3: 108.4 Section 3: 99.5 Section 3: 111.1 Section 3: 102.0
Section 4: 108.4 Section 4: 102.0 Section 4: 102.0

(h)
Calculated normal contact pressure σ′: kPa Section 1: 118.9 Section 1: 118.9 Section 1: 122.2 Section 1: 122.2
Section 2: 101.7 Section 2: 118.9 Section 2: 122.2 Section 2: 104.3
Section 3: 118.9 Section 3: 101.7 Section 3: 122.2 Section 3: 104.3
Section 4: 118.9 Section 4: 104.3 Section 4: 104.3

(i)
Calculated normal contact pressure σ′: kPa Section 1: 92.4 Section 1: 92.4 Section 1: 94.2 Section 1: 94.2
Section 2: 84.6 Section 2: 92.4 Section 2: 94.2 Section 2: 86.3
Section 3: 92.4 Section 3: 84.6 Section 3: 94.2 Section 3: 86.3
Section 4: 92.4 Section 4: 86.3 Section 4: 86.3

to unfavourable pipe friction resulting from the excessive pipe devia-
tion, but to the gravel formation at 32 m distance not being long enough
to establish lower face resistance or total jacking load.
4. Conclusions
(3) Pipe-jacking data from the four drives were represented using the
From the comparison of the calculated normal contact pressures
based upon the four jacking force models and the back-analysed fric-
tional coefficients, the following conclusions can be drawn:
(1) Four well-established jacking force models were reviewed in this
study. Amongst all the models, the σ/γh value in JMTA is the
minimum in all the h/De values, suggesting that the effect of soil
arching performed best in JMTA.
(2) JMTA provided the lowest estimation of the normal contact
pressure (σ′) by introducing the reduced overburden height and
assuming fully developed shearing bands. As h/De < 7, ASTM F
1962 gave the highest estimation as it made a more cautious as-
sumption that reduces the mobilised shearing resistance along the
sliding planes by taking only half the friction angle into account.
baseline technique. In JMTA, the back-analysed frictional coeffi-
cient (μavg) value, resulting from jacking through the first and final
sections of gravel at Drive A, was 0.59 and 0.52, respectively, while
the other models reported the μavg values below 0.1. The higher μavg
values were most likely due to increasing pipe friction incurred
while jacking through the gravel sections where local collapse or
ground closure occurred. The μavg values of 0.9 and 0.3, respec-
tively, induced by tunnelling through the second section of gravel at
Drive C and the second section of fine soil governed ground at Drive

502
W.-C. Cheng et al. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 71 (2018) 494–504

Table 6
Summary of the back-analysed μavg values for the four pipe-jacking drives.

Pipe-jacking drives A B C D

Geology in baseline section Section 1: Gravel Section 1: Gravel Section 1: Gravel Section 1: Gravel
Section 2: Clayey gravel Section 2: Gravel Section 2: Gravel Section 2: Clayey gravel or silt
or clay Section 3: Clayey sand Section 3: Gravel Section 3: Clayey gravel or silt
Section 3: Gravel Section 4: Gravel Section 4: Clayey gravel Section 4: Clayey gravel or silt
Frictional coefficient μ recommended by Stein et al. (1989) Section 1: 0.3–0.4 Section 1: 0.3–0.4 Section 1: 0.3–0.4 Section 1: 0.3–0.4
Section 2: 0.2–0.3 Section 2: 0.3–0.4 Section 2: 0.3–0.4 Section 2: 0.2–0.3
Section 3: 0.3–0.4 Section 3: 0.2–0.3 Section 3: 0.3–0.4 Section 3: 0.2–0.3
Section 4: 0.3–0.4 Section 4: 0.2–0.3 Section 4: 0.2–0.3
Back-analysed μavg value by JMTA (2000) Section 1: 0.59 Section 1: 0.007 Section 1: 0.03 Section 1: 0.03
Section 2: 0.03 Section 2: 0.05 Section 2: 0.9 Section 2: 0.30
Section 3: 0.52 Section 3: 0.03 Section 3: 0.007 Section 3: 0.73
Section 4: 0.09 Section 4: 0.18 Section 4: 0.05
Back-analysed μavg value by Ma (2008) Section 1: 0.09 Section 1: 0.001 Section 1: 0.004 Section 1: 0.004
Section 2: 0.003 Section 2: 0.008 Section 2: 0.14 Section 2: 0.03
Section 3: 0.08 Section 3: 0.004 Section 3: 0.001 Section 3: 0.09
Section 4: 0.01 Section 4: 0.02 Section 4: 0.007
Back-analysed μavg value by Shimada and Matsui (1998) Section 1: 0.11 Section 1: 0.001 Section 1: 0.005 Section 1: 0.005
Section 2: 0.008 Section 2: 0.009 Section 2: 0.17 Section 2: 0.08
Section 3: 0.10 Section 3: 0.01 Section 3: 0.001 Section 3: 0.21
Section 4: 0.02 Section 4: 0.05 Section 4: 0.02
Back-analysed μavg value by Terzaghi (1951) Section 1: 0.14 Section 1: 0.002 Section 1: 0.007 Section 1: 0.007
Section 2: 0.006 Section 2: 0.01 Section 2: 0.21 Section 2: 0.06
Section 3: 0.12 Section 3: 0.008 Section 3: 0.002 Section 3: 0.16
Section 4: 0.02 Section 4: 0.04 Section 4: 0.01
Back-analysed μavg value by GB 50332-02 (2002) Section 1: 0.08 Section 1: 0.001 Section 1: 0.004 Section 1: 0.004
Section 2: 0.005 Section 2: 0.007 Section 2: 0.13 Section 2: 0.05
Section 3: 0.07 Section 3: 0.006 Section 3: 0.001 Section 3: 0.12
Section 4: 0.01 Section 4: 0.03 Section 4: 0.009
Back-analysed μavg value by ATV A 161 (German ATV rules Section 1: 0.08 Section 1: 0.001 Section 1: 0.004 Section 1: 0.004
and standards, 1990) Section 2: 0.004 Section 2: 0.006 Section 2: 0.11 Section 2: 0.04
Section 3: 0.07 Section 3: 0.005 Section 3: 0.001 Section 3: 0.11
Section 4: 0.01 Section 4: 0.03 Section 4: 0.008
Back-analysed μavg value by ASTM F 1962 (ASTM, 2011) Section 1: 0.07 Section 1: 0.001 Section 1: 0.003 Section 1: 0.003
Section 2: 0.004 Section 2: 0.006 Section 2: 0.10 Section 2: 0.04
Section 3: 0.06 Section 3: 0.005 Section 3: 0.001 Section 3: 0.10
Section 4: 0.01 Section 4: 0.03 Section 4: 0.008
Back-analysed μavg value by BS EN 1594 (BS, 2009) Section 1: 0.09 Section 1: 0.001 Section 1: 0.004 Section 1: 0.004
Section 2: 0.005 Section 2: 0.008 Section 2: 0.13 Section 2: 0.05
Section 3: 0.08 Section 3: 0.006 Section 3: 0.001 Section 3: 0.13
Section 4: 0.01 Section 4: 0.03 Section 4: 0.009
Tunnel bore condition deduced by JMTA Section 1: Ground Section 1: Stable tunnel Section 1: Stable tunnel Section 1: Stable tunnel bore
closure bore bore Section 2: Possible ground
Section 2: Stable tunnel Section 2: Stable tunnel Section 2: Possible ground closure
bore bore closure Section 3: Not applicable
Section 3: Ground Section 3: Stable tunnel Section 3: Stable tunnel Section 4: Stable tunnel bore
closure bore bore
Section 4: Stable tunnel Section 4: Ground closure
bore

D were attributed to increasing friction resistance resulting from the
excessive pipe deviation greater than the threshold value of 60 mm.
While the other models reported the μavg values within the limits of
0.1 and 0.3 and below 0.1, respectively.
(4) Pipe-jacking through the third section of silty gravel or clayey
gravel at Drive D characterised by JMTA indicated inadequate lu-
brication, with the μavg value of 0.73. However, the higher μavg
value of 0.73 was not caused by unfavourable pipe friction resulting
from the excessive pipe deviation, but by the gravel formation at
32 m distance not being long enough to establish lower face re-
sistance or total jacking load.
(5) JMTA yielded the μavg value more realistic than the other models
and has shown a potential use in assessing the interface perfor-
mance during pipe-jacking works.
Acknowledgements
This study would not have been possible without the financial and
technical support from the Kao Kun Construction Co. Ltd. A series of
valuable comments from two anonymous reviewers are much appre-
ciated.
References
ASTM, 2002. Standard Test Method for Particle-Size Analysis of Soils. D422-63, West
Conshohocken, PA.
ASTM, 2011. Standard guide for use of maxi-horizontal directional drilling for placement
of polyethylene pipe or conduit under obstacles including river crossings. F 1962-11,
West Conshohocken, PA.
Barla, M., Camusso, M., Aiassa, S., 2006. Analysis of jacking forces during microtunnel-
ling in limestone. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 21 (6), 668–683. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.tust.2006.01.002.
British standards, 2009. BS EN:1594-09 Gas supply system-pipelines for maximum op-
erating pressure over 16 bar-functional requirements. Brussels, pp. 76–78.
Chapman, D.N., Ichioka, Y., 1999. Prediction of jacking forces for microtunnelling op-
erations. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 14 (1), 31–41. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
S0886-7798(99)00019-X.
Choo, C.S., Ong, D.E.L., 2015. Evaluation of pipe-jacking forces based on direct shear
testing of reconstituted tunneling rock spoils. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 141 (10),
04015044. http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0001348.
Cui, Q.L., Xu, Y.S., Shen, S.L., Yin, Z.Y., Horpibulsuk, S., 2015. Field performance of
concrete pipes during jacking in cemented sandy silt. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol.

503
W.-C. Cheng et al.
49, 336–344. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2015.05.005.
Cheng, W.C., Ni, J.C., Shen, S.L., Huang, H.W., 2017a. Investigation into factors affecting
jacking force: a case study. P. I. Civ. Eng. Geotec. 170 (4), 322–334. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1680/jgeen.16.00117.
Cheng, W.C., Ni, J.C., Shen, S.L., 2017b. Experimental and analytical modeling of shield
segment under cyclic loading. Int. J. Geomech. 17 (6), 04016146. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0000810.
Cheng, W.C., Ni, J.C., Cheng, Y.H., 2017c. Alternative shoring for mitigation of pier-
foundation excavation disturbance to an existing freeway. J. Perform. Constr. Fac. 31
(5), 04017072. http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CF.1943-5509.0001063.
D'Appolonia, D.J., 1980. Soil-bentonite slurry trench cutoffs. J. Geotech. Eng. 106 (4),
399–417.
French Society for Trenchless Technology, 2006. Microtunnelling and Horizontal Drilling:
French National Project “Microtunnels”: Recommendations. ISTE, London.
German ATV rules and standards, 1990. ATV-A 161 E-90. Structural Calculation of Driven
Pipes. Hennef, pp. 18–20.
Japan Microtunnelling Association (JMTA), 2000. Pipe-jacking Application, Japan
Microtunnelling Association (JMTA), Tokyo.
Kastner, R., Pellet-Beacour, A.L., Ouvry, J.F., Guilloux, A., 1996. In-situ monitoring of
microtunneling projects. Proceedings of International NO-DIG'96, New Orleans, pp.
171–182.
Khazaei, S., Shimada, H., Matsui, K., 2004. Analysis and prediction of thrust in using
slurry pipe jacking method. Proceedings of the 30th ITA-AITES World Tunnel
Congress, Singapore, pp. 22–27.
Kou, H.L., Chu, J., Guo, W., Zhang, M.Y., 2015. Field study of residual forces developed in
pre-stressed high-strength concrete (PHC) pipe piles. Can. Geotech. J. 53 (4),
696–707.
Milligan, G.W.E., Norris, P., 1996. Site-based research in pipe jacking – objectives, pro-
cedures and a case history. Trenchless Technol. Res. 11 (1), 3–24.
Ma, B., 2008. The Science of Trenchless Engineering. China Communications Press,
Beijing.
Norris, P., 1992. The Behavior of Jacked Concrete Pipes During Site Installation. Ph.D.
Thesis, University of Oxford.
Ni, J.C., Cheng, W.C., Ge, L., 2011. A case history of field pumping tests in a deep gravel
formation in the Taipei Basin, Taiwan. Eng. Geol. 117 (1–2), 17–28.
Ni, J.C., Cheng, W.C., 2011a. Shield machine disassembly in grouted soils outside the
ventilation shaft: a case history in Taipei Rapid Transit System (TRTS). Tunn.
Undergr. Space Technol. 26 (2), 435–443.
Ni, J.C., Cheng, W.C., 2011b. Steering efficiency of microtunnelling in various deposits.
Proceedings of the GeoHunan International Conference 2011, Geotech. Special Publ.
No. 221. Geo-Inst. ASCE Publs., pp. 33–39.
Ni, J.C., Cheng, W.C., 2012a. Steering characteristics of microtunnelling in various soils.
Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 28, 321–330. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2011.
11.003.
Ni, J.C., Cheng, W.C., 2012b. Characterising the failure pattern of a station box of Taipei
Rapid Transit System (TRTS) and its rehabilitation. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol.
32, 260–272.
Ni, J.C., Cheng, W.C., Ge, L., 2013. A simple data reduction method for pumping tests
504
Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 71 (2018) 494–504
with tidal, partial penetration, and storage effects. Soils Found. 53 (6), 894–902.
Ni, J.C., Cheng, W.C., 2014. Quality control of double fluid jet grouting below ground-
water table: case history. Soils Found. 54 (6), 1039–1053.
Namli, M., Guler, E., 2017. Effect of bentonite slurry pressure on interface friction of pipe
jacking. J. Pipeline Syst. Eng. Pract. 8 (2), 04016016.
Pellet-Beacour, A.L., Kastner, R., 2002. Experimental and analytical study of friction
forces during microtunneling operations. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 17 (1),
83–97.
Roark, R.J., Young, W.C., 1976. Formulas for Stress and Strain. McGraw-Hill, New York.
Rogers, C.D.F., Yonan, S.J., 1992. Experimental study of a jacked pipeline in sand.
Tunnels Tunn. Int. 24 (6), 35–38.
Rahjoo, S., Najaf, M., Williammee, R., Khankarli, G., 2012. Comparison of jacking load
models for trenchless pipe jacking. Pipelines 2012 – Innovations in Design,
Construction, Operations, and Maintenance, Florida, pp. 1507–1520.
Stein, D., Möllers, K., Bielecki, R., 1989. Microtunneling: Installation and Renewal of
Nonman-Size Supply and Sewage Lines by the Trenchless Construction Method.
Ernst, Berlin, Germany.
Shimada, H., Matsui, K., 1998. A new method for the construction of small diameter
tunnels using pipe jacking. Proc. of Regional Symposium on Sedimentary Rock
Engineering, pp. 234–239.
Sofianos, A.I., Loukas, P., Chantzakos, C., 2004. Pipe jacking a sewer under Athens. Tunn.
Undergr. Space Technol. 19 (2), 193–203. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0886-
7798(03)00108-1.
Staheli, K., 2006. Jacking Force Prediction an Interface Friction Approach Based on Pipe
Surface Roughness. Ph.D. Thesis, Georgia Institute of Technology.
Shou, K.J., Yen, J., Liu, M., 2010. On the frictional property of lubricants and its impact
on jacking force and soil–pipe interaction of pipe-jacking. Tunn. Undergr. Space
Technol. 25 (4), 469–477. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2010.02.009.
Shen, S.L., Cui, Q.L., Ho, C.E., Xu, Y.S., 2016. Ground response to multiple parallel mi-
crotunneling operations in cemented silty clay and sand. J. Geotech. Geoenviron.
Eng. 142 (5), 04016001.
Shen, S.L., Wang, Z.F., Cheng, W.C., 2017. Estimation of lateral displacement induced by
jet grouting in clayey soils. Geotechnique 67 (7), 621–630. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1680/jgeot.16.P.159.
Terzaghi, K., 1936. The shearing resistance of saturated soils and the angle between the
planes of shear. Proc. of the 1st International Conference on Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Engineering. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 54–56.
Terzaghi, K., 1943. Theoretical Soil Mechanics. John Wiley & Sons Inc, New York, USA,
pp. 66–76.
Terzaghi, K., 1951. Theoretical Soil Mechanics. J. Wiley and Sons, New York.
The Ministry of Construction of China, 2002. GB 50332-02, Structural Design Code for
Pipeline of Water Supply and Waste Water Engineering. Beijing, pp. 11–12.
Wham, B.P., Argyrou, C., O’Rourke, T.D., 2016. Jointed pipeline response to tunneling-
induced ground deformation. Can. Geotech. J. 53 (11), 1794–1806.
Yen, J., Shou, K., 2015. Numerical simulation for the estimation the jacking force of pipe
jacking. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 49, 218–229. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
tust.2015.04.018.