Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com
Tunnelling and
Underground Space
Technology
incorporating Trenchless
Technology Research
Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 23 (2008) 38–45
www.elsevier.com/locate/tust

A simplified 3D model for tunnel construction using tunnel

boring machines
H. Mroueh *, I. Shahrour
Laboratoire de Mécanique de Lille (UMR 8107), Université des Sciences et Technologies de Lille, F-59655 Villeneuve d’Ascq, France

Received 5 September 2006; received in revised form 21 November 2006; accepted 28 November 2006
Available online 24 January 2007

Abstract

This paper includes a presentation of a simplified three-dimensional numerical model for the prediction of soil movement induced
during tunnel construction using tunnel boring machines (TBM). The model is based upon the generalization of the convergence-con-
finement concept to 3D tunnel construction. It uses two parameters (Ldec and adec) which stand for the length of the unlined zone and the
partial stress release, respectively. The value of the parameter Ldec can be taken equal to the tunnel diameter, while the value of adec can
be determined by fitting the model to empirical formula, and then adjusted based on settlement registered during tunnel construction.
The capacity of the model is illustrated through an application to a shallow tunnel in soft soil. The comparison of the numerical
results to those suggested by different authors shows good agreement.
Ó 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Tunnel boring machine; TBM design; Finite element method; Three-dimensional; Non-linear; Shield tunnelling; Convergence-confinement

1. Introduction the geometry during excavation. The 3D aspect is due to

Construction of tunnels in soft soils induces generally
soil movement, which could seriously affect the stability
and integrity of existing structures (pile foundations, build-
ings. . .). In order to reduce such movement, in particular in
urban areas, contractors use more and more the tunnel
boring machines (TBM) for the construction of tunnels.
Indeed, thanks to the application of a face pressure and
to the temporary support, the TBM allows to reduce the
soil disturbance due to tunneling, providing enhanced
safety to existing structures (Herrenknecht, 1998; Kuri-
hara, 1998; Kuwahara, 1999).
Analysis of the impact of the tunnel construction using
TBM on the soil movement requires the solution of
large 3D non-linear soil–structure interaction problem.
Non-linearity results from the non-linear behavior of
geomaterials, the condition at the soil–structure interface
(soil – grouting-lining, soil – shield,) and the evolution of
*
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: Hussein.Mroueh@polytech-lille.fr (H. Mroueh).
the significant stress disturbance and soil movement
induced ahead the excavation front. 3D elastic analyses
conducted by Panet and Guenot (1982) showed ground
convergence at the tunnel face which was equal to about
27% of the total settlement. Higher values, up to 50%, were
observed in field measurements and computational analy-
ses in soft ground (Moraes, 1999). Finite element modeling
of the tunnel construction using TBM requires also the
consideration of the complex tunnel process which includes
the advance of the TBM, the application of the face pres-
sure, the soil excavation, the installation of an immediate
support behind the rotating front, the installation of the
definitive support (lining ring) and the tail void grouting.
A realistic consideration of these issues in the 3D calcula-
tion constitutes a high challenge (Dias et al., 2000; Cheng
et al., 2002; Galli et al., 2004), because of the large effort
for numerical modeling and calculation and the large
uncertainties concerning the interaction between the shield
and the soil, the behavior of the grouting, and the distribu-
tion of the tail void. Consequently, the use of this approach
in tunnel design is still limited, because it requires impor-

0886-7798/$ - see front matter Ó 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.tust.2006.11.008
 H. Mroueh, I. Shahrour / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 23 (2008) 38–45
Step i
Phase i
α dec * σ(i- 1)
Ldec Llin
Step
Phasei+1
i+1
(1−αdec) * σ(i) α dec * σ(i) p due to the external forces (self-weight, surface loads,
lining
revêtement grouting
coulis
Fig. 1. Method used for the tunnel construction using TBM.
tant modeling effort and computational time. In order to
overcome this difficulty, a simplified method is proposed
in this paper to model the TBM tunneling process using
a three-dimensional model based on the convergence-
confinement method (Panet and Guenot, 1982) with two
release parameters: adec and Ldec, which stand for the par-
tial stress release and the length of the unlined zone, respec-
tively (Fig. 1). This method can be easily implemented and
employed using existing programs based on either the finite
element or the finite difference method.
The paper presents successively, the proposed method,
its application to a model tunnel and the sensitivity of
the method to the release factors adec and Ldec.
2. Presentation of the numerical model
Numerical modelling of the tunnel construction using
TBM constitutes a hard task, because it requires consider-
ation of complex aspects such as the soil excavation, the
overcut or annular space between the jacking pipe and the
excavation, the application of the face pressure, the installa-
tion of the definitive support constituted of lining rings and
the grouting of the annular space. It also requires the descrip-
tion of the non-linear behavior of both the soil and the lining
and the condition at the soil–structure interface. Modelling
of the tunnel construction is also three-dimensional, because
the TBM induces an important stress disturbance and soil
movement ahead the excavation front. Modelling of the
annular space between the ground and the lining extrados
is still problematic, because of the difficulties to collect effec-
tive data on the distribution and grouting of this space.
Up to now, it seems very difficult to consider the above-
mentioned issues in the practical design of tunnels. In order
to overcome this difficulty, a simplified method is proposed
39
in this paper to model the TBM process using a three-
dimensional model based on the convergence-confinement
method (Panet and Guenot, 1982). This method uses a
step-by-step procedure. Each step corresponds to the pro-
gression of the tunnel face by a distance Llin (Fig. 1). At
each step of the procedure, the stress release around the
tunnel head is modeled using the parameters adec and Ldec,
which stand for the ratio of the stress release and the length
of the unlined zone, respectively. The calculation procedure
at the step (incr) includes:
(a) Determination of the incremental force resulting
from the soil excavation (DF). This force is equal to
the difference between the nodal force vector (F(incr))
front pressure, . . .) and the nodal internal forces at the
previous step ‘incr-1’; calculation of DF is carried out
using the following expression:
Z t
ðincrÞ
DF ¼ F  Be rðincr1Þ dV ð1Þ
V ðincrÞ
V(incr) represent the volume of the soil mass at the
step (incr); Be is the strain interpolation matrix which
contains the spatial derivatives of the interpolation
functions (e = BeÆu; u nodal displacement); r(incr1)
denotes the stress tensor at the previous step (incr-
1).In order to take into account the partial deconfine-
ment resulting from the tunnel construction process
(overcut, injection of the annular void, installation
of the definitive tunnel support,. . .), a parameter adec
is used for considering the partial release on the
unsupported section of the tunnel; the length of this
section is assumed to be equal to Ldec. The incremen-
tal nodal force vector in this section (DF) is trans-
formed using the following expression:
DF 0 ¼ adec  DF ð2Þ
(b) Activation of the lining elements located in the new
section and a full release of stresses in this section.
(c) Application of the face pressure ‘p’ (Fig. 1); the pressure
is assumed to be constant with depth; it corresponds to
a ‘compressed-air pressure’ TBM. Note that this pres-
sure can vary with depth to model ‘slurry shield’
machines or ‘earth pressure balance’ (EPB) machines.
The soil movement is controlled through the partial
release factor adec and the parameter Ldec which enable users
to consider the influence of the void space and grouting
around the tunnel. The determination of these parameters
can be carried out by an adjustment procedure using empir-
ical models and measurements during tunnel construction.
The following section presents the application of the
proposed method to a model tunnel, which will be followed
by a sensitivity analysis of the model to the variation of the
partial release parameters adec and Ldec. This analysis
allows the elaboration of a methodology for the determina-
tion of these factors.
40 H. Mroueh, I. Shahrour / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 23 (2008) 38–45

3. Application to a tunnel model Table 1

Properties of geomaterials used in the tunnel model
The proposed method has been implemented in the finite Geomaterial E (MPa) m c 0 (MPa) u (°) w (°) c (kN/m3)
element code PECPLAS which provides flexible features Soil 30 0.3 0.005 27 5 20
for the analysis of three-dimensional and non-linear soil– Lining 35,000 0.25 25
structure interaction problems (Shahrour, 1992; Mroueh
and Shahrour, 1999). This program uses a sparse storage
scheme for the stiffness matrix, and the bi-CGSTAB itera-
tive method (Van der Vorst, 1992) coupled to the SSOR Table 1 summarizes the characteristics of both the soil and
preconditioning operator (Successive Symmetrical Over- the lining. Homogeneous silty sand is considered with the
Relaxation) for the solution of the resulting linear systems. following characteristics: friction angle u = 27°, cohesion
C = 5 kPa, dilatancy angle w = 5°, Young’s modulus
3.1. Geometry and numerical parameters E = 30 MPa, and Poisson’s ratio m = 0.3. The lining is as-
sumed to be governed by a linear-elastic behavior with a
Fig. 2 shows the tunnel model geometry. The tunnel is Young’s modulus E = 35,000 MPa and a Poisson’s ratio
characterized by its outer diameter D = 7.5 m, depth m = 0.25.
H = 2.5 D and lining thickness e = 0.5 m. The distance of The initial stress in the soil media is determined using
the tunnel centre to the bottom boundary (rigid substra- a coefficient of lateral earth pressure at rest K0 = 0.5
tum) is assumed to be equal to 2.5D. and an effective bulk unit weight of the soil of c 0 =
The soil behavior is assumed to be governed by an elas- 10 kN/m3.
tic perfectly–plastic constitutive relation based on the
Mohr–Coulomb criterion with a non-associative flow rule. 3.2. Finite element mesh
The yield function and the plastic potential are given by
rffiffiffiffiffi Finite element analysis was carried out using the mesh
pffiffiffiffiffi J2
f ¼ p sin u þ J 2 cos h  sin u sin h  C cos u ð3Þ presented in Fig. 3. This mesh consists of 2214 20-nodes
3 hexahedral elements, which give rise to 10,494 nodes and
rffiffiffiffiffi
pffiffiffiffiffi J2 28,471 degrees of freedom. The lateral boundaries of the
g ¼ p sin w þ J 2 cos h  sin u sin h ð4Þ
3 model are located a distance 4D from the tunnel axis in
where C, u and w designate the soil cohesion, friction angle order to minimize their interaction with the tunneling con-
and dilatancy angle, respectively; p, J2 and h stand for the struction. The longitudinal length of the mesh is fixed to
mean stress, second invariant of the deviatoric stress tensor 8D, and the tunnel excavation is performed for a final posi-
and Lode angle, respectively. Their expressions are given by tion of 4D. This mesh is used to illustrate the application of
the proposed method. In tunnels design, an enhanced mesh
p ¼ rii =3 ð5Þ must be used in order to well capture the soil deformation
1 and the development of plasticity around the tunnel. An
J 2 ¼ sij  sij where sij ¼ rij  pdij ð6Þ extension of the lateral boundaries of the soil mass should
2 !
pffiffiffi also be considered.
1 1 3 3 J3 sij  sjk  ski
h ¼ sin  : 3=2 where J 3 ¼ ð7Þ
3 2 J2 3 3.3. Calculation process

Computation was carried out in 12 steps using the fol-

lowing parameters for the excavation modelling: ratio of
stress release adec = 0.5, length of the unlined zone
Ldec = 1D, and length of the excavated section at each step
Llin = D/3. The face pressure is assumed to be uniform and
H = 2.5D equal to p ¼ r0h , where r0h stands for the initial axial stress
at the tunnel axis.

D = 7.5m 3.4. Results

3.4.1. Settlement along longitudinal profiles

e= 50 cm Fig. 4a shows the evolution of the surface soil settlement
along the longitudinal axis (A–AP 0 ) during the tunnel con-
struction. It can be observed that the maximal surface set-
tlement increases with the tunnel progression, and tends to
Fig. 2. Numerical example used for the illustration of the model stabilize at a value of wsurf
max ¼ 0:07%D (D denotes the tunnel
performances. outer diameter. The stabilisation of the surface settlement
 H. Mroueh, I. Shahrour / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 23 (2008) 38–45 41

u=0

v=0

4.5D

v=0
u=0

z
x
y
8D 4D
u=v=w=0

Fig. 3. 3D Finite element mesh used in numerical analysis (2214 20-node elements; 10,494 nodes; 28,471 ddl).

Fig. 4. Reference example: vertical displacement along longitudinal section: (a) at the ground surface, along the line (A–A 0 ) and (b) at the tunnel crown,
along the line (B–B 0 ).
42 H. Mroueh, I. Shahrour / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 23 (2008) 38–45

is observed after an excavation length of 3D). It can be
noted that the surface settlement (wa) at the tunnel face is
constant during the tunnel progression. It is equal to
0.03%D, which corresponds to 46% of the maximal value
of settlement at the end of the simulation wsurf
max . The amount
of settlement induced just before the lining installation
(wa + wb) is about 77% of wsurf max (0.05%D), which means
that 31% of the total settlement is induced in the unlined
zone of the tunnel. This result shows that 23% of the total
settlement (wc) is due to the complete release of the confine-
ment (1  adec).
Table 2 summarises the proportion of settlement, in
comparison with some published results. It can be noted
that these values are in good agreement with observed or
computed values reported by various authors. The amount
of settlement in the front of the tunnel face wa appears
higher than reported values, but the cumulative settlement
wa + wb is in good agreement. Note that these values highly
depend on the factors adec and Ldec.
3.4.2. Crown displacement
Fig. 4b shows the variation of vertical displacement
along the longitudinal axis (BB 0 ) during the tunnel con-
struction, at the tunnel crown location wcr. It can be
observed that the major part of the crown displacement
results from the TBM progression. Indeed, 40% (respec-
tively 90%) of the total displacement at the tunnel crown
is observed at the TBM passage (respectively at the lining
activation). After the lining installation, the displacement
shows a rapid stabilization around the value wcr max ¼
0.16%D.
Table 2
Soil settlement along the longitudinal axis (A  A 0 )
wa /wsurf
max (%)
Numerical model 46
AFTES (1999)a 10–20
In situ measurements 15–35
(Pantet, 1991)a (Mean: 27)
a
Observed in case of shield driven excavation, with lining installation.
The spreading of displacements from the tunnel to the
surface can be analysed through a ‘softening’ coefficient
or factor of diffusion Rdif, according to (AFTES, 1999):
Rdif ¼ wsurf cr
max =wmax ð8Þ
Vertical displacements at the soil surface and the tunnel
crown give Rdif = 0.4, which means that 40% of the vertical
displacement at the crown tunnel is transmitted to the sur-
face. This value agrees with empirical approaches and
in situ observations. Ward and Pender (1981) reported val-
ues for the diffusion coefficient varying from 0.2 (for sands)
to 0.74 (for over-consolidated clays), while Sagaseta (1987)
reported values between 0.2 (for frictional material) and
0.67 (for low frictional clay).
3.4.3. Settlement in a cross direction
Fig. 5 shows the evolution of the settlement in the trans-
verse section along the axis C  C 0 . It can be observed that
a moderate settlement appears (0.01%D) when the tunnel
face is about 1D behind the cross section (C C 0 ), then
the settlement increases when the tunnel face crosses the
traverse section and tends to stabilize when the distance
between the tunnel face and the section (C  C 0 ) exceeds
+2D.
Numerical results illustrated in Fig. 5 were used for the
determination of the parameters of Peck formula (Peck,
1969): the location of the point of inflection of the settle-
ment curve ‘i’, the length of the settlement profile ‘Ls’
and the volume loss at the ground surface ‘vs’. Results
are summarised in Table 3a. It is noted that the distance
‘‘i’’ and the length ‘Ls’ decrease with the progression of
the tunnel face, and tend to stabilise to a value of
i = 1.17D when the relative distance between the cross sec-
tion and the tunnel face exceeds +1D. The volume loss at
wb /wsurf
max (%) wc /wsurf
max (%)
the surface is estimated to Vs = 0.26%Vexc, where Vexc
31 23 denotes for the volume of excavated soil.
40–50 30–50 The parameters of Peck formula can be estimated from
20–65 9–55 semi-empirical methods. Table 3b shows a comparison of
(Mean: 48) (mean: 25) the numerical results with the empirical expressions
proposed by

-0.01
Surface settlement w (%D)

(C-C’)
-0.02
2D
0
(D-D’)
-0.03 Tunnel face
location
-0.04 y = -1D
y = -D/3
-0.05 (C-C') y = 0 (face)
y = +1D z
y = +2D y
-0.06 x
(D-D')

-0.07
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
Distance from tunnel axis (x/D)

Fig. 5. Reference example: surface settlement in transversal section during excavation Line (C  C 0 ) is located at y = 2D from the line (D  D 0 ) (y = 0).
 H. Mroueh, I. Shahrour / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 23 (2008) 38–45 43

Table 3a It can be observed that the model presented in this paper

Determination of the parameter of Peck’s formula for the settlement in the
cross section (Fig. 5)
leads to some results in good agreement with the suggested
values for the position of the inflection point ‘i’, but under-
Position of the tunnel face wsurf
max (%D) i/D Ls/D Vs/Vexc (%)
estimates the volume loss at the ground surface ‘vs’. This
(C  C 0 ): 1D 0.01 1.31 3.28 0.04 last result is dependent to the numerical model and may
(C  C 0 ): 0D 0.03 1.21 3.03 0.12
(C  C 0 ): +1D 0.05 1.18 2.96 0.19
be optimised with enhanced meshes.
(C  C 0 ): +2D 0.06 1.18 2.96 0.23
Profile (D D 0 ) 0.07 1.17 2.93 0.26 3.4.4. Extension of plasticity
Fig. 6a–b shows the extension of plasticity in two trans-
verse sections: the tunnel face (Fig. 6a) and the traverse sec-
Table 3b
tion located at a distance y = 1D behind the tunnel face
Comparison of numerical results with suggested values for the parameter (Fig. 6b). It can be observed that plasticity at the tunnel
of Peck’s formula face is concentrated around the tunnel with mainly an
Model Attewell (1977) O’Reilly and Oteo and extension in the horizontal direction; while behind the
New (1982) Sagaseta (1982) tunnel face, the extension of plasticity is mainly observed
i/D 1.17 1.25 0.68–1.22 0.77–1.43 along the directions +/ 30° with regard to the horizontal
Vs/Vexc 0.26% 1–5% 0.5–3% axe. It should be emphasised that the extension of the plas-
ticity depends on the soil characteristics, the tunnelling pro-
cess and the depth of the tunnel.
 Attewell (1977): ‘i’ varies from 0.8D (sands) to 1.25D
(clays), while the ratio Vs/Vexc lies in the range 1% and 4. Influence of the tunnel modelling parameters Ldec and adec
5%;
 O’Reilly and New (1982): ‘i’ varies from 0.68D (sands) The proposed model includes the partial release factors
to 1.22D (cohesive soil), while the ratio Vs/Vexc lies in Ldec and adec which control the soil movement due to the
the range 0.5% and 3%; construction of the tunnel. The determination of these
 Oteo and Sagaseta (1982): ‘i’ varies between 0.77D and parameters can be carried out by comparison of the
1.43D. model to empirical values flowed by an adjustment on

a 1
Plastic zone

0.5

Tunnel face
Z (z/D)

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2

-0.5

-1
X (x/D)
z
1 y0
b x
Plastic zone

0.5
Z (z/D)

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 y = -1D behind the
tunnel face
-0.5

-1
X (x/D)

Fig. 6. Spread of plasticity in transverse section: (a) at the tunnel face (y = 0) and (b) behind the tunnel face (y = 1D).
44 H. Mroueh, I. Shahrour / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 23 (2008) 38–45

0 The parameter Ldec corresponds to the length of the

unlined area of the tunnel. It can be approximated to the
length of the tunnel boring machine (TBM), which is
Surface settlement w surf (%D)

-0.02
approximately equal to 1D. The influence of Ldec on the
soil movement along the longitudinal profile (A  A 0 ) is
-0.04
presented in Fig. 7. It may be noted that an increase of Ldec
Lining of about 66% leads to a moderate increase in the maximum
-0.06 installation settlement (about 15%), without significant influence on the
ratio between the settlements behind and ahead the tunnel
-0.08 L = 1D face. This parameter can then be fixed to Ldec = 1D.
dec
L = 5D/3 The factor adec stands for the ratio of the stress release
dec
before the lining installation. Fig. 8 illustrates the influence
-0.1
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 of a variation of this factor on the soil settlement. It shows
Distance from tunnel face (y/D) that the reduction of adec from 0.5 to 0.3 leads to a reduction
of the about 70% of the maximum settlement, whereas an
Fig. 7. Influence of the parameter Ldec (length of the unlined zone) on the
soil settlement.
increase of adec from 0.5 to 0.7 leads to an increase of about
160% of the settlement. Fig. 9a and b illustrate the extension
of plasticity in the transversal section located at a distance of
0 y = 1D from the tunnel face. It clearly shows that the fac-
tor adec highly affects the extension of plasticity in the soil
mass. This factor is strongly related to the construction pro-
Surface settlement w surf (%D)

-0.05 cedure, the tunnel depth and the soil properties. It should
evaluated and adjusted using in situ measurements.
-0.1
5. Conclusion
-0.15
αdec = 0.3 A simplified non-linear three-dimensional numerical
model is proposed for the determination of the soil move-
-0.2 αdec = 0.5
ment induced by TBM. The method uses the factors Ldec
αdec = 0.7 and adec, which stand for the length of the unlined zone
-0.25 and the partial stress release, respectively. The value of
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 the parameter Ldec can be taken equal to the tunnel diam-
Distance from tunnel face (y/D) eter, while the value of adec can be determined by fitting the
Fig. 8. Influence of the factor adec (partial stress release) on the soil model to empirical formula then by adjustment on settle-
settlement. ment registered during tunnel construction.
The capacity of the model is illustrated through an
measurements registered during the first stage of the tunnel application to a shallow tunnel in soft soils. The work is
construction. This adjustment requires a sensitivity analysis under progress for the construction of charts which provide
in order to investigate the influence of the factors Ldec and values of the factor adec for different tunnels configurations
adec on the soil settlement profile. (depth, diameter, lining stiffness, etc.) and soil properties.

a 1 b1
Z (z/D)

Z (z/D)

0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 0 0.5 1 1.5 2

-1 -1
X (x/D) X (x/D)

Fig. 9. Influence of the factor adec on the spread of plasticity: (a) adec = 0.3 and (b) adec = 0.7.
 H. Mroueh, I. Shahrour / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 23 (2008) 38–45
References
AFTES, 1999. Settlements induced by tunnelling. Recommendations of
the working group 16, chairman LEBLAIS, Y., with the collaboration
of Andre, D.C., Chapeau, P. Dubois, J.P. Gigan, J. Guillaume, E.
Leca, A. Pantet, G. Riondy, Special issue of ‘‘Tunnels et Ouvrages
souterrains’’ available online www.aftes.asso.fr. 1st issue published in
1995, in French: Tunnels et Ouvrages Souterrains, vol. 132, pp. 373–
395.
Attewell, P.B., 1977. Ground movements caused by tunnelling in
soil. In: Geddes, Cardiff J.D. (Ed.), . In: 1st Conf. on Large
Ground Movements and Structures. Pentech Press, London, pp.
812–948.
Cheng , L.T., Dasari, G.R., Leung, C.F. Chow, Y.K., 2002. A novel FE
technique to predict tunnelling induced ground movements in clays. In:
Queck, S.T., Ho, D.W.S. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 15th KKCNN
Symposium on Civil Engineering.
Dias, D., Kastner, R., Maghazi, M., 2000. Three-dimensional simulation
of slurry shield tunnelling. Proceedings of International Symposium on
Geotechnical Aspects of Underground Construction in Soft Ground.
Balkema, Rotterdam, pp. 351–356.
Galli, G., Grimaldi, A., Leonardi, A., 2004. Three-dimensional
modelling of tunnel excavation and lining. Comput. Geotech. 31,
171–183.
Herrenknecht, M., 1998. New developments in large-diameter tunnel
design manufacture and utilisation for world-wide projects. In: World
Tunnel Congress’98 on Tunnels and Metropolises. Balkema, Sao
Paulo, pp. 869–875.
Kurihara, K., 1998. Current mechanized shield tunnelling methods in
Japan. In: World Tunnel Congress’98 on Tunnels and Metropolises.
Balkema, Sao Paulo, pp. 615–622.
Kuwahara, S., 1999. Mechanized and automated tunnelling in Japan.
In: Proceedings of the International Symposium on Ground
Challenges and Expectations in Tunnelling Projects, Cairo, Egypt,
pp. 81–91.
45
Moraes Jr., A.H., 1999. Three-dimensional numerical simulation of
tunnels excavated with NATM. Msc thesis, University of Brazilia,
Brazil (in Portugese).
Mroueh, H., Shahrour, I., 1999. Use of sparse iterative methods for the
resolution of three-dimensional soil/structure interaction problems. In:
Int. J. Numer. Anal. Methods Geomech., 23. Wiley & sons (Ltd), pp.
1961–1975.
O’Reilly, M.P., New, B.M., 1982. Settlements above tunnels in the United
Kingdom – their magnitude and prediction. In: Proceedings of the
International Conference Tunnelling ’82. Institution of Mining and
Metallurgy, London, pp. 55–64.
Oteo, C.S., Sagaseta, C., 1982. Prediction of settlements due to
underground openings. In: Int. Symp. on Numerical Methods in
Geomechanics, Zurich, 13–17 September, pp. 653–659.
Panet, M., Guenot, A., 1982. Analysis of convergence behind the face of a
tunnel. In: Proceedings of the International Conference Tunnelling ’82.
Institution of Mining and Metallurgy, London, 187–204.
Pantet, A. 1991. Creusement des galeries à faible profondeur à l’aide d’un
tunnelier à pression de boue. Mesures in situ et étude théorique du
champ de déplacement, Ph.D. thesis, INSA, Lyon.
Peck, R.B., 1969. Deep excavations and tunnelling in soft ground. In:
Proc. 7th Int. Conf. on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering,
Mexico City, State-of-the-Art volume, pp. 225–290.
Sagaseta, C., 1987. Evaluation of surface movements above tunnels: A
new approach. Colloque Interactions sols-structures, Paris, ENPC
press, 445–452.
Shahrour, I., 1992. PECPLAS: A finite element package for the resolution
of geotechnical problems. In: Colloque Géotechnique et Informatique.
ENPC press, Paris, pp. 327–334.
Van der Vorst, H.A., 1992. Bi-CGSTAB: a fast and smoothing converging
variant of bi-CG for the solution of non-symmetric linear systems.
SIAM J. Sci. Statist. Comput. 13 (2), 631–644.
Ward, W.H., Pender, M.J., 1981. Tunnelling in soft ground – General
report. In: 10th Int. Conf. on Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering, vol. 4, Stockholm, pp. 261–275.