Underground Space Use: Analysis of the Past and Lessons for the Future Erdem & Solak (eds)

2005 Taylor & Francis Group, London, ISBN 04 1537 452 9

Pressure gradients at the tunnel face of an Earth Pressure Balance shield

A. Bezuijen
GeoDelft, Delft, Netherlands

J.F.W. Joustra
Tunnel Engineering Consultants (TEC)/Witteveen
Bos

A.M. Talmon
WL | Delft Hydraulics, Delft, Netherlands

B. Grote
T & E Consult

ABSTRACT: Measurements are presented that were performed in the pressure chamber of an EPB TBM. The
TBM operated in saturated sand with a high water table. Foam was applied for soil conditioning. Different from
a slurry shield there was no direct relation between vertical the pressure gradient and the density of the sand
water foam mixture in the pressure chamber. The pressure measurements differ considerably for different rings.
The density of the mixture was measured by taking samples from the pressure chamber during excavation.
Densities found indicate a porosity higher than the maximum porosity of the sand. Horizontal pressure gradients were measured during drilling depending on the rotation direction of the cutter head. A possible explanation is presented in the paper.

INTRODUCTION

The Botlek Rail Tunnel was the second bored tunnel

in The Netherlands and the first that was completed
using an EPB shield. A considerable part of the tunnel
was bored through Pleistocene sand under a high
water table, see Figure 1. The water table was up to 23 m
above the tunnel axis. Foam was used to stabilize the
tunnel face.
The support pressure acting at the tunnel face can be
seen as a combination of an absolute pressure and the
vertical pressure gradient. In an EPB-shield, the average pressure is controlled by the screw conveyer and
valves; the vertical pressure gradient is determined by a

combination of the excavation process and material

properties and cannot be controlled. Yet this gradient is
of importance because it determines the pressure at the
crown of the tunnel for a given pressure at the axis. The
pressure gradient at the tunnel face of a slurry shield is
determined by density of the slurry at the tunnel face.
For an Earth Pressure Balance shield there appear to be
more mechanisms that determine the gradient.
The paper deals with the pressure gradients measured, the densities of the mixture samples taken and
possible mechanism that determine the gradients found.
2
2.1

MEASUREMENTS
Measurements performed

clay, siltywith sand

bored section 1830 m
river

sand

sand
30m
middle to coarse sand
with gravel

sand

sand

318

813

peat

clay with humus

or peat

Figure 1. Geotechnical profile. The numbers indicate the

approximate positions of rings, see further text.

The following measurements where performed at the

tunnel face: The density of the muck was measured by
sampling the muck through a stopcock in the pressure
bulkhead. The total pressure was measured at the
bulkhead at 9 locations and the pore water pressure
at 3, see Figure 2. The pore pressure gauges could be
cleaned by a small water jet to avoid blocking of the
filter. The status of the boring process was monitored
as well as the amount of injected foam.

809

vert.press.grad(kPa/m)

0
E9

E1

2.5

W1

315
E8

45
E2

30
25
20
15
10
5
4.50

17.5

4.25

0.0

positive
rotation

E6

W2

90

3.50

E4
E5

225

W3

15.0

3.75
12.5

E5

3.25
3.00

E2

2.50
2.25

7.5

E1

2.00

135

10.0

E4

E3

2.75

5.0

status

1.75
1.50

screw
conveyor

STATUS

270

4.00

E3
pressure (bar)

E7

2.5

1.25

180

1.00

0.0
12:00

12:30

13:00

13:30

14:00

14:30

TIME

Figure 2. Position of instruments in the TBM looking from

the tunnel to the TBM and definition of rotation.

2.2

Density measurements

In order tot determine the exact composition of the

muck inside the excavation chamber a sampling device
was developed. This device simply consisted of a piece
of pipe with some valves which was directly attached
to the pressure bulkhead. By carefully opening the
valves, some muck was allowed to flow out from the
pressured excavation chamber through the sampling
device. By subsequently closing the valves an exactly
known volume of muck was extracted which would
be analysed in a laboratory. In this way, the porosity
and water content of the mixture could be determined,
which could be converted tot the relative volumes
of the different phases of the mixture (solid, liquid
and gas).
A total of more than 20 samples of muck have been
extracted from the centre of the excavation chamber
at 6 different locations along the tunnel alignment.
Although muck with a relatively high consistency
proved problematic to collect because of its inability
to flow easily, samples taken in a short time span were
very comparable.
2.3

Pressure measurements

2.3.1 Pressures and vertical gradients

Pressures were measured during excavation of the
Botlek Rail Tunnel at various locations at the pressure
bulkhead; see for an example Figure 3. The vertical
pressure gradients determined from these pressures are
shown in the upper plot of Figure 3. (all figures with
measurements present the ring number in the caption
that was drilled during the measurement. S is the
south tunnel, N the north). It shows that the gradient

Figure 3. Ring 318 N. Pressures measured at the bulkhead,

status of the TBM and the gradient determined from the
pressures. Only a part of the pressure readings is shown, but
all readings (E1 E9) are used to calculate the gradient.
Table 1.

Meaning of the status bit.

Status

Meaning

1
2
3
4
5
6

Temparary stop during excavation

Excavation
End of excavation phase
Start of ring building phase
Actual ring erection
Pause after ring erection

can be high during excavation but decreases when

excavation stops (shown with the status, 2 means excavation, all other values mean stand still, see Table 1).
The values measured for the vertical gradient can be
put in perspective realizing that the gradient of the
total vertical pressure in the not yet excavated soil is
approximately 20 kPa/m, the density of the foamwater-soil mixture is approximately 13 kPa/m and the
pore pressure has a gradient of 10 kPa/m. The measurements showed that the measured gradients can
higher than 20 kPa/m, but also lower than 10 kPa/m.
The vertical gradient decreases during ring building.
Another way to present the pressure measurements
for the same ring is shown in Figure 4. It shows the
pressures from gauges E1 until E5 for different time
steps. It can be seen that there is a more or less linear
increase with pressure apart form the lowest measurement position (E5) with various gradients. The pressure decreases at the position of E5, because this
gauge is close to the screw conveyer, where the
mixture is removed from the pressure chamber.

810

-5
-4

distance from tunnel axis (m)

-3
-2
-1
0

pressure (bar)

11:50:52
11:51:38
12:00:00
12:04:31
12:04:35
12:30:01
13:00:03
13:30:02
13:34:00

4.50
4.25
4.00
3.75
3.50
3.25
3.00
2.75
2.50
2.25
2.00
1.75
1.50
1.25
1.00

W2
W1

E3

E1

12:00

12:30

13:00
TIME

13:30

14:00

14:30

Figure 5. Ring 318 N. Total pressures and pore pressures

compared.

2
3

4
2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

rpm

2.0

Pressure (bar)

0
-1
-2
5

2.3.2 Effective stress

Pore pressure gauges were installed near some total
pressure gauges, see Figure 2 to determine the effective stress in the soil water foam mixture. Results of
both total pressure gauges and pore pressure gauges
are shown in Figure 5. It is clear that both pressures
are comparable, which means that the effective stress
in the mixture is negligible. W3 did not function and
therefore could not be compared with E5.
Figure 5 shows the pressures measured for only
one ring. The conclusion that there is hardly any
effective stress in the mixture is a more general one
for this boring (Joustra, 2002). Although there are
some indications that there is an effective stress near
transducers E4 and E6 during the drilling of some
rings, as will be dealt with later in this paper. The conclusion that there is hardly any effective stress is also
confirmed by the density measurements performed. It
was found that in most cases the porosity of the samples was above the maximum porosity. A porosity
lower than the maximum porosity is necessary to
have a grain skeleton and effective stresses.
2.3.3 Horizontal pressure differences
The measurements show for some rings remarkable
horizontal pressure differences depending on the
direction of rotation of the cutter head, see Figure 6 and
Figure 7. Pressures varied 1 bar and more depending
on the direction of rotation. The pressure variations

pressure (bar)

Figure 4. Ring 318 N. Pressure distribution along the

gauges E1 until E5 for various time steps.

00:30:00

01:00:00

01:30:00

4
E6
3

E4

2
1
0
00:30:00

01:00:00
TIME

01:30:00

Figure 6. Ring 813 S. Pressures measured right (E4) and

left (E6) of the TBM axis compared with the rotation of
the cutter head, see also definition in Figure 2.

are most significant for pressure gauges E4 and E6,

less for the other gauges and more or less disappeared
at the top of the tunnel, see Figure 7.
Pressure variations differ for different rings. Most
rings have only small variations, see Figure 8. Also here
pressures varied depending on the rotation direction,
but the variation was so small that it could not be
noticed in the original data, see Figure 3. By taking a
moving average over 7 measurements to reduce the
noise it is possible to see a variation of approximately
0.25 bar.
2.3.4 Variations in pressure
Comparing the results of Ring 318 N with those of Ring
813 S, it appeared that there is a considerable difference
in the results of these rings. Compare Figure 6 with
Figure 8 and Figure 4 with Figure 7. Measurements

811

(Bezuijen & Schamine, 2001). A more constant pressure may lead to a smoother drilling process with less
stops. Now it can be seen from Figure 3, the status,
that there are sometimes a lot of stops during drilling.

-5

distance from tunnel axis (m)

E1E9 E9
-4 E1
-3

0:26:02

E2 E2
E8

E8

0:40:03

-2

-1

E3

E3

3.1
E7

E7

0
1
2

E6

E6

E4

E4

3
E5 E5

4
2.0

2.5

3.0
3.5
pressure (kPa)

4.0

Figure 7. Ring 813 S. Distribution of pressures when the

cutter head is rotating to the left (negative values) at 0:26:02
and to the right at 0:40:03.
2

rpm

1
0
-1
-2
4.50

pressure (bar)

4.25
4.00
3.75

25

E6

3.50
3.25
3.00

E4

2.75

DISCUSSION
Vertical gradient

In a slurry shield TBM the vertical gradient found in

the pressure chamber was equal to the gradient that
corresponds with the density of the slurry (Bakker
et al., 2003). In the predictions made for these measurements it was assumed that this was also the case for an
EPB shield. However, this was not found for this tunnel. Pressure gradients varied during drilling and this
variation is much larger than can be expected from
variations in densities. Measured vertical gradients
are sometimes larger than 20 kPa/m. Assuming that
such a gradient is a good indication for the density
would mean that there would be rather dense saturated
sand in the pressure chamber, which is quite unlikely.
From the results it was concluded that also the
yield stress of the soil has an influence on the pressure gradient. This can also be seen from the pressure
drop that is present at E5 compared to the pressures
E4 and E6, see Figure 4 and Figure 7. At the lower end
of the tunnel, the screw conveyer removes the mixture
from the pressure chamber and due to the yield
strength of this mixture this leads to a pressure drop.
Assume a layer of sand-water-foam mixture between
the cutter head and the pressure bulkhead of the pressure chamber at L metre apart. The adhesion between
the cutter head or the pressure bulkhead and the mixture is
a and the density of the mixture is m. In case
of vertical flow, equilibrium of forces leads to the
following equation:

2.50
12:00:00

12:30:00

13:00:00

13:30:00

14:00:00

14:30:00

(1)

TIME

Figure 8. Ring 318 N. Pressures measured right (E4) and

left (E6) of the TBM axis compared with the rotation of the
cutter head, see also definition in Figure 2 (lines smoothed,
see text).

from other rings showed also such differences

(Joustra, 2002); although for quite a number of rings
the soil conditions are comparable. The excavation
process showed al lot of variability, which leads to the
assumption that there is still a considerable margin of
optimisation left with respect to the control of this
process. The process is sensitive to pressure variations,
because by the air involved these variations influence
the volume in the mixture chamber and the performance of the screw conveyer. This was also found in
laboratory experiments simulating the EPB process

Depending on the flow direction the pressure gradient

can be 2
a /L higher or lower than the pressure gradient corresponding to the density of the mixture. In
case of a flow with a horizontal component as can be
expected in the pressure chamber between E6 and E5
as well as between E4 and E5, the influence of the
adhesion becomes even bigger.
There is no direct field data from the shear strength
of the mixture in the pressure chamber, but from
measurements in the laboratory it was found that this
shear strength is one to a few kPa. This means that
with an average density of the mixture of approximately 1500 kg/m3, the pressure gradient can vary as
was measured depending on the direction of the flow.
Lower values of the shear stress of 0.2 to 0.6 kPa were

812

found from back calculation of the performance of

the screw conveyer (Talmon & Bezuijen 2002).
However these values are likely to be lower than in the
pressure chamber due to the pressure relief in the
screw conveyer that leads to a higher porosity.
From a physical point of view the concept of
adhesion as described here is probalby too simple.
Adhesion on flat iron surfaces can be less and the
roughness, combined with the conhesion results in an
apparent adhesion. However, also this apparent adhesion will result in the pressure gradient variations
described here.
After the actual drilling, during ring building, the
vertical pressure gradient decreases. Foam injections
executed during ring building are necessary to keep a
stable boring face, but also lead to a decrease in the
average density of the mixture. The pressure loss is
caused by ground water flow from the tunnel face to
the ground water caused by the excess pore pressure
in the chamber (see also Bezuijen et al., 2002 and
Bezuijen, 2002). The water that flows out is compensated with foam that contains only about 10% water
and 90% air.
Consequence of the relatively low measured vertical
gradient during most of the drilling cycle, compared
to the gradient that corresponds with the density of
the soil, is that the pressure gradient is lower than the
soil pressure gradient. It is sometimes mentioned as
an advantage of the EPB shield that there is a better
match with the pressure gradient in the soil when
compared with a slurry shield. For the ground conditions encountered here this is not the case. The relatively high permeability sand (k is 5.8 106 m/s when
Ring 318 N was drilled 3.104 m/s during drilling of
Ring 813 S) leads to expelling of water from the mixture. This reduces the density of the mixture. This
with the influence of the yield stress that leads to a
further reduction of the vertical gradient results in
pressure gradients that are significantly lower than
measured in a slurry shield (Bakker et al., 2003).
3.2

Horizontal gradient

Some horizontal gradient can also be explained by the

yield stress of the air-sand-water mixture, assuming
that the pressure chamber is not completely filled.
The cutter head pushes the mixture in one direction
and to get a stable situation it has to flow back.
However, it can only flow back if there is a pressure
difference large enough to overcome the yield stress.
This pressure difference is created because there is
more mixture on one side of the TBM than on the
other side, see Figure 9.
The figure shows a possible pressure distribution
on both sides of the axis (the centre part with a radius
of 5 m) assuming that there is more mixture on the
right side due to the rotation of the cutter head.

0
315

45
2.5
mixture
level

270

mixture
level

0.0

90

rotation
225

135
p
180

Figure 9. Sketch of possible pressure distribution due to rotation of cutter head without effective stress, see further text.

Assuming a stable situation, the pressure has to be the

same on both sides at 180 degrees (the lowest point of
the mixture, but is higher on the right hand side for
other positions, because the mixture is higher on that
side. The difference between both pressures is highest
on the top level of the mixture on the left hand side.
A pressure distribution as shown in Figure 9
implicitly assumes that the pressure chamber is only
partly filled with sand water foam mixture. This was
measured for some rings (the pressure gauges on top
of the TBM showed the same pressures) but not for all
and not for Ring 813 s, see Figure 7.
The mechanism sketched above can explain some
horizontal gradient, but not the approximately 100 kPa
that was measured during the drilling of Ring 813 S.
Assuming again a density of the mixture of 1500 kg/m3,
such a pressure difference corresponds to a different
in height of at least 6.6 m, which is quite unlikely
because that is more than halve of the height of the
pressure chamber. Looking at the pressure gradient
measurements, shown in Figure 7, there is no indication that there is an empty pressure chamber, over
several metres from the top of the TBM. An empty
pressure chamber would mean that the pressure remains
constant, which is not the case.
A possible explanation for the high horizontal
pressure gradient is the effective stress that can occur
in the mixture chamber, see Figure 10. This Figure is
the same as Figure 6, but the reading of pressure gauge
E5 and pore pressure gauge W3 are added. From
Figure 10 it is clear that the variation in the pore pressure, measured with W3, is much less than the variation in the total stress transducers E4 and E6 (the
pressure fluctuations on the pore pressure gauge after
drilling (rotation is zero), are caused by the cleaning

813

 The vertical pressure gradient is only to a certain

extend influenced by the density of the mixture.
Yield stress of the mixture also seems to have an
influence.
The vertical pressure gradient can be lower for a
EPB using foam than for a slurry shield.
Horizontal pressure gradients can be quite considerable over the tunnel face. These may be caused
by compression of the sand grains in the mixture
leading to effective stresses in some parts of the
pressure chamber.

2
rpm

1
0
-1

pressure (bar)

-2
5.0
4.5

E6
E4

4.0
W3

3.5
3.0

E5

2.5
2.0
00:30:00

01:00:00
TIME

01:30:00

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Figure 10. Ring 813 s. Pore pressure measured at W3

compared with the pressures measured at E4, E6 and E5 and
the rotation of the cutter head. Variations in W3 after 1:00
are caused by the cleaning mechanism on the gauge.

system on the pore pressure transducer). E4 is more

or less equal to the pore pressure transducer for negative rotation (turning to the left) and E6 is equal to the
pore pressure transducer when the cutter head is turning in the opposite direction. In both cases the other
pressure transducer is approximately 1 bar (100 kPa)
above the pore water pressure.
When the cutter head is rotating in a way that the
mixture is transported from screw conveyer, the mixture becomes more or less squeezed between the cutter head and the bulk head. This resulted locally in a
high pressure. The pressures are lower at higher levels
in the pressure chamber and close to the screw conveyer (see the reading of E5 in Figure 10). No effective stress was measured at these locations.
4

CONCLUSIONS

From the study described in this paper we came to the

following conclusions:
While boring in sand with an EPB shield an important function of the foam is to increase the porosity
of the sand to such a value that deformation is possible with no or only limited grain stresses. This is
different from boring in clay where the lubricating
is more important (Mair et al., 2003).
Significant differences between tunnel rings in
comparable geology of the pressure measurements
and other process parameters suggest that the regulation of the drilling process has some potential
for optimisation. A better regulation can possibly
improve the drilling process.

The laboratory tests were commissioned and supervised

by BTL (Research foundation: Horizontal Drilling &
Tunnelling) and COB (Centre for Underground
Construction). The authors wish to thank these foundations for their permission to publish the results. The
data on the Botlek Rail Tunnel presented here are
derived from the COB-pilot project F300 in which the
authors participate. The authors are very grateful to
both COB and the builder of the tunnel BTC Botlek
vof, with the granted opportunity to publish.

REFERENCES
Bakker K.J., Teunissen E.A.H., Berg P. van den,
Smits M. Th. J.H., 2003, K100 research at the second
Heinenoord tunnel. Proc. ITA 2003, Amsterdam,
Bezuijen A., Pruiksma J.P., Meerten H.H. van 2001. Pore
pressures in front of tunnel, measurements, calculations
and consequences for stability of tunnel face. Proc. Int.
Symp. on Modern Tunneling Science and Techn. Kyoto.
Bezuijen, A., & P.E.L. Schamine, 2001, Simulation of the
EPB-shield TBM in model tests with foam as additive,
Proc. Int. Symp. on Modern Tunneling Science and Techn.
Kyoto.
Bezuijen A. Influence of soil permeability on the properties
of a foam mixture in a TBM. 3rd Int. Symp. on Geotch.
Aspects of Underground Construction in Soft Ground,
IS-Toulouse.
Joustra, J.F.W., 2002, Additional data analysis independent
research project Botlek Rail Tunnel, the EPB-process
(in Dutch), Delft University of Technology report.
2001.BT.5566.
Mair, R.J., Merrit, A.S., Borghi, X., Yamazaki, H., and
Minami T., 2003. Soil conditioning of Clay Soils.
Tunnels and Tunnelling International, April.
Talmon A.M. & A. Bezuijen, 2002, Muck discharge by the
screw conveyor of an EPB Tunnel Boring Machine, 3rd Int.
Symp. on Geotch. Aspects of Underground Construction
in Soft Ground, IS-Toulouse.

814