TBM

Introduction
Dr Alan Bloodworth
Contact details:
– School of Engineering
– University of Warwick
– Library Road, Coventry CV4 7AL
– UNITED KINGDOM
– Email a.bloodworth@warwick.ac.uk
– Tel: +44 (0)24 7657 3440, +44 (0)7795 454244
2
The art of tunnelling…
ground surface
‘water table’
C
tunnel lining P
‘face’
3
Historical overview
4
A brief history of tunnelling…
Earliest excavations
The peak of canal and railway construction
in the UK and Europe
The first shields and mechanised
tunnelling
Hand excavation methods
5
Early civil engineering tunnels
Tunnel of Eupalinos, Samos, Greece
6
Tunnel of Eupalinos
Greek Engineer: Eupalinos of Megara
Excavated approx. 520 BC, by slaves
1036m long, excavated by hand through a
limestone hill 200m high
Dug by 2 teams, meeting in the middle!
Used to convey water from the North of the
island of Samos to the capital city, Tigani
pop. 300,000 (now known as Pythagoreion)
7
Canal du Midi, France
Canal du Midi built 1666-1681 to link Atlantic
to Mediterranean
First recorded use of gunpowder as a
construction tool
Malpas Tunnel built in the winter 1679-1680,
170m long
Europe’s first navigable canal tunnel
Rectangular cross-section 6.5 x 8.0m, with
vaulted roof
8
Malpas
Tunnel
9
Tunnelling in the UK
Developed during the expansion of the canal
network in the late 18th and early 19th century
Two significant tunnels during this time:
– James Brindley’s 2633m Harecastle Tunnel, excavated
through Millstone Grit using gunpowder during the 1770’s,
at the time twice as long as any other tunnel in the world
– the 5029m long tunnel at Standedge constructed through
Millstone Grit and opened in 1811, which took 17 years to
complete, still the longest and deepest canal tunnel in the
UK
10
Canal/railway tunnel construction
Famous book by Sims (see Reference list)
Excavation by hand in small stages where ground is
insufficiently strong to support itself, using
extensive timber support
Wast Hills Tunnel,

Birmingham
11
Main tunnel advance
12
Cross-section through timber heading
13
Initial breakout of a heading
14
Thames Tunnel
First tunnel under a navigable waterway
Rotherhithe to Wapping, London
1825-1842, 17 years
First recorded use of a tunnelling shield,
consisting of 12 frames made of cast iron
Designed and built by Sir Marc Brunel, his
son Isambard Kingdom also worked on the
project as a shift engineer
15
Marc Brunel’s shield
16
pictures from Mathewson et al. (2006)
17
Purpose of Brunel’s shield was to support the
face and perimeter of the excavation and
provide safe shelter and working platforms for
the miners
Shield weighed 81.3 tonnes and was advanced
by jacks pushing against the brick tunnel lining
Excavation of the face was by hand
Shield had a movable working platform on which
the miners deposited the spoil and was also used
by the masons erecting the brickwork
18
19
20
J. H. Greathead
Tower Subway in 1869, 411m long under
the Thames – Greathead built a shield
advanced by screws, cast iron lining 6’-7”
internal diameter (ID)
In the meantime, cylindrical shields were
used for tunnels in New York and
Cincinnati with hydraulic rams in 1868-9
1873, Greathead invented a hydraulic
segment erector for the Woolwich Subway
21
Greathead shield
22
Tower Subway
23
Waterloo and City Line, at Bank
24
Greathead shield – further developments
In 1887, compressed air was used with a shield
to drive the City & South London Railway
(Northern Line) under the Thames, in total 18
shields were used to build the new underground
line
J. H. Greathead then invented the closed face
shield with water jets to break up the ground,
which was removed by pumping
First proper slurry shield was used at New Cross
in 1971
25
Central London Railway
26
Summary
Earliest tunnels could only really be constructed in
competent ground, i.e. ground that does not need
support
As the demand for tunnels increased hugely in the
industrial era, tunnellers encountered less convenient
ground, requiring complex temporary and permanent
support. Modern sprayed concrete tunnelling has
similarities with this.
The invention of tunnelling shields and the further
mechanisation of the tunnelling process massively
improved its safety and reliability, leading to modern
mechanised tunnelling processes
27
References and further reading
Copperthwaite, W. C. (1906). Tunnel shields and the use of compressed air in
subaqueous works, 416pp. New York: D. van Nostrand Co.
http://www.archive.org/stream/tunnelshieldsuse00copprich#page/n5/mod
e/2up
Greathead, J. H. (1896). The City and South London Railway – with some
remarks upon subaqueous tunnelling by shield and compressed air, 94pp.
London: ICE.
http://www.archive.org/stream/cityandsouthlon00greagoog#page/n0/mod
e/2up
LUL G-055 (2007). Manual of Good Practice – Deep Tube Tunnels and Shafts.
MacKenzie, C. N. P. (2014). Traditional timbering in soft ground tunnelling –
a historical review. London: British Tunnelling Society.
Mathewson, A., Laval, D., Elton, J. Kentley, E. & Hulse, R. (2006). The Brunels’
Tunnel, 84pp. London: The Brunel Museum.
Sims, F.W. (1896). Practical tunnelling. 4th edition. New York: Van Nostrand
28
Future vision for tunnelling
29
Sustainable Development Goals
From 2017 onwards – can engineers make a
difference?
Population Growth
Explosive urbanisation
From 2015 to 2030 the world population is
predicted to rise from 7.3 billion up to nearly 10
billion
31
Top 20 most populated countries
Global Trends
Increased urbanisation in developing countries
Cities with insufficient shelter
Insufficient Infrastructure and services
Overcrowded transportation systems
Inadequate water supplies
Inadequate sanitation
Increasing pollution
Underground cities?
DAN FOLEY
Sanitation
Sometimes there is nowhere else to go
Transportation Tunnels
Chongming under River Tunnels, Shanghai.

Bulk Fuel Storage (LPG, Crude Oil etc.)
Waste Collection
Underground Data Storage
Enhancing the Environment
Before After
Before After
Underground Automated Car Parking
Conceptual design
How do you select an appropriate
technique?
Geometry, length, profile
Ground Conditions
Environmental Constraints
Can ground improvement techniques be applied
Cost and Time
Functional Performance
Sustainability
Safety of the workers and third parties
43
Geometry
44
45
Channel Tunnel High Speed Rail Link,
North Downs Tunnel
Environmental Constraints
• Settlement
• Noise
• Vibration
• Size of the worksite
• Ecological factors
47
Can ground improvement
techniques be applied?
• Compressed air
• Dewatering
• Artificial ground freezing
• Permeation grouting
• Jet grouting
• Soil Mixing
48
Functional Performance requirements
• Watertightness
• Durability / design
life
• Aesthetic
appearance
49
Sustainability
• Resource efficiency (Smarter Design)
• Design life
• Use of waste materials
50
Safety of the workers and third parties
51
Lining Options
None
Precast Concrete Segments
Sprayed Concrete
52
53
Soft ground tunnelling methods
Available soft ground tunnel
construction methods
Hand excavation
Open face mechanical excavation
(including sprayed concrete lined tunnels)
Full Tunnel Boring Machines (TBMs)
– Slurry
– Mixshield
– Earth Pressure Balance
– Variable density
55
Hand excavation
Compressed air tools began to appear in the
later part of the 19th Century, followed by hand
tunnelling shields with jacks
Hand tunnelling has survived to the present day,
despite enormous improvements in mechanised
tunnelling techniques, machines, materials and
“knowledge”
Hand work excavation may be used today for the
completion of a final connection, excavation of a
cross passage or to drive a heading to rescue a
stuck TBM
56
King’s Cross NLA CP1 (Nov 2007)
57
58
59
King’s Cross NLA CP1 (Nov 2007)
60
Open Face Mechanical Excavation
“Traditional”
Sprayed concrete lined
Shield mounted
61
“Traditional” open face excavation
62
Basic soft ground tunnelling considerations
Ground characterisation
Ground loading
Groundwater
Face stability
Settlement
63
Ground characterisation
Soft Ground Tunnel Boring
Machines
Challenges in Mechanized
Tunnelling.
Higher water pressures Lower overburdens

(river crossings) and tunnels below sensitive
inner-city infrastructure
Larger
tunnel
diameters
Longer tunnel routes
More heterogeneous and difficult ground conditions
66
Types of tunnelling machines
o Auger Boring Equipment
o Pipejacking Machines
o Partial Face Tunnelling Machines
Roadheader or Excavator
o Full Face Tunnel Boring Machines
o Closed Face Tunnel Boring Machines
Mixshield
Earth Pressure Balance (EPB)
Variable Density
o Rock and Gripper Tunnel Boring Machines
67
Size ranges of tunnelling machines
68
Partial face TBMs
Shield mounted excavator booms
70
Open face shield with roadheader
71
72
Open face heading stability
Talking points
• What is a heading?
• Why is stability important?
• Causes and patterns of failure
• Undrained and drained stability
• Mechanical support
• Compressed air
• Slurry
• Earth pressure balance (EPB)
74
Earth pressures recap
Unit weight, g
Total stress, sv sh
Pore water pressure, u
Effective stress, sv’ = sv – u, sh’ = sh - u
K0 = sh’/sv’
75
Tunnelling vocabulary extrados
crown
intrados
shoulder
centreline
axis or springline
knee
invert
76
Tunnelling vocabulary
OD ID
77
What is a heading?
C
P
78
Some useful
definitions
P = Unsupported length
C = Cover
D = Diameter
sT = tunnel support
pressure (kN/m2)
g = unit weight of soil
(kN/m3)
su or cu = undrained
shear strength of soil
c’, f’ drained soil
parameters
79
Why is stability
important?
Failure could result in disaster
Stability usually determines the choice of
construction method
How stable the heading is can be correlated
to magnitude of ground movements
80
Causes and patterns of failure
All headings will fail without either:
– cohesion or
– support pressure
They fail because of:

– gravity
– seepage forces
81
Gravity failure
Centrifuge model of a heading in sand,

P = 0 (Messerli, Pimentel &
Anagnostou, 2010)
82
Centrifuge testing
Centrifuge model of a tunnel heading in sand (Oblozinsky & Kuwano, 2004)
83
Centrifuge testing (2)
84
Centrifuge testing (3)
85
Ground movements around tunnels in sand
Centrifuge tests of tunnel headings in sand by Potts (1976) and Cording et

al. (1976); figure taken from O’Reilly & New, 1982
86
Ground movements
around tunnels in clay
Basic mechanism (Leca & New, 2007)
Centrifuge tests of tunnel

headings in clay by Mair (1979); Field measurements vs. empirical
figure from O’Reilly & New (1982) prediction (New & Bowers, 1994)
87
Comparison of sand to clay
88
What about clay?
Clays can often be
observed standing
in vertical faces
with no signs of
instability
Because…
89
…they have cohesion
This is largely due to the clay’s low permeability
During timescale of construction, as soil is unloaded and relaxes
towards the face, the pore water pressure between the soil grains
decreases
This ‘suction’ or ‘negative excess pore pressure’ holds the grains
together. The low permeability of clay means that these suctions can
exist for a long period of time. This is called undrained behaviour.
When these negative excess pore pressures are dissipated by pore
water flowing into the pores from neighbouring areas, the clay will
behave in a drained manner, i.e. more like a sand. Drained cohesion in
clays is usually very small or zero.
A rule of thumb is that a soil with permeability less than between 10-7
to 10-8 m/s will behave undrained during typical tunnel construction.
Soil with higher permeability will behave as drained.
90
Collapse of soil constructions
Kinematic upper bound calculation = must
collapse
Statically admissible (i.e. in equilibrium) stress
field lower bound = cannot collapse
Limit equilibrium satisfies both criteria, so is a
‘true’ collapse load
See Atkinson (2007), Chapter 19 for a first
principles explanation
See Davis et al., 1980, for application to tunnel
headings
91
Davis et al. (1980)
Lower bound stress field Upper bound failure mechanism
92
Heading stability in clay
Heading stability in undrained clay is
governed by several factors:
– undrained shear strength
– depth to axis and unit weight
– internal support pressure (if any)
– P/D ratio and C/D ratio
C
P
93
Heading stability in clay (2)
These factors are captured in the non-dimensional
stability number or stability ratio, N (Broms and
Bennermark, 1967):
g - s T

N = -------
sT
su
94
Heading stability in clay (3)
Upper and lower bound solutions for collapse of
tunnel headings in undrained clay exist, e.g. Davis et
al. (1980).
Most common approach nowadays (before resorting
to numerical analysis) is comparison of stability
number N to stability number at collapse, Nc (or NTC ).
Nc is determined empirically, i.e. by experiment and
field observation
A difference in behaviour and resulting collapse
prediction can be seen for ‘deep’ and ‘shallow’
tunnels
95
Deep and shallow tunnels
Finite element limit analysis (Augarde et al.,
2003)
96
Deep and shallow tunnels (2)
“Shallow”
“Deep”
97
Stability number at collapse, Nc or NTC
Design charts for Nc based on centrifuge tests and
corroborated by a small number of tunnel failures
Design charts from Mair & Taylor, 1997
98
Stability Calculation (Example)
C = 10m g = 20 kN/m3 Nc
su = 100 Kpa
D = 4m P = 2m
C/D = 2.5 P/D = 0.5
Nc from Chart = 7.2 C/D
Stability Number = (12*20 - 0) / 100
= 2.4 The lower the FOS, the higher
displacements and loads on
Factor of Safety = 7.2/2.4 supports are likely to be.
=3
99
Example clay site (London clay)
Dimmock & Mair (2007). Jubilee Line
Extension, St. James’ Park London
100
SCL tunnel (JLE, Elisabeth House)
101
London clay shear strength data
Note: Assume g = 20kN/m3 for all
geomaterials in the problem
Cover C is measured to top of

London clay, but vertical stress is
due to all ground above the
tunnel, including surface layers!
For shallow tunnel (C/D<3) take

average shear strength between
tunnel and top of clay
For deep tunnel (C/D >=3) use

shear strength at tunnel
102
Factor of safety
How do I calculate the factor of safety (F.O.S.) of the heading,
and what value is appropriate?
F.O.S. = Nc/N
Face collapse is an example of a GEO Ultimate Limit State
according to Eurocode 7
Design Approach 1, Combination 2 (factoring down the
material strength) is most appropriate
Soil parameter gM
tan f’ 1.25
c' 1.25
Undrained strength su or cu 1.4
Unconfined strength qu 1.4
103
Parametric study
St James’ Park London site (Slide 100), D = 4.850 m throughout
C P N/Nc P N/Nc P N/Nc

1.5 1.9 1.07 3.8 0.80 0.0 0.74
2.5 1.9 0.82 3.8 0.74 0.0 0.59
5.0 1.9 0.64 3.8 0.50 0.0 0.44
7.5 1.9 0.45 3.8 0.44 0.0 0.44
10.0 1.9 0.42 3.8 0.50 0.0
12.5 1.9 0.38 3.8 0.0
15.0 1.9 0.38 3.8 0.44 0.0 0.30
20.0 1.9 0.41 3.8 0.44 0.0 0.42
25.0 1.9 0.26 3.8 0.0
104
Example – SCL tunnel
5m
Top of London
clay
16m
Mid-height of
8.23m tunnel (assumed to be
axis level for this
calculation)
12.5m
105
Example – SCL tunnel
Determine if face stable when heading
advanced as one face (not really realistic?)
If not stable, determine what construction
sequence should be stable with a F.O.S. of
1.4
Need data for soil strength (next slide)
106
London clay shear strength data
(Dimmock and Mair, 2007)
Note: Assume g = 20kN/m3 for all
geomaterials in the problem
Cover C is measured to top of

Assumed top of London clay, but vertical stress is
London clay due to all ground above the
tunnel, including surface layers!
‘Mean’ line For shallow tunnel (C/D<3) take

116 + 5.3z average shear strength between
tunnel and top of clay
‘Lower
bound’ line For deep tunnel (C/D >=3) use
80 + 5.1z shear strength at tunnel
107
SCL construction sequences
Top heading and bench Split top heading/bench/invert
Side wall drift Double side wall drift
108
Example SCL tunnel - solution
Procedure:
– Simplify tunnel geometry, as tunnel not
circular (equivalent diameter and axis depth)
– Calculate stability number at collapse, Nc
– Establish soil profile at site
– Calculate stability number N
– Obtain Factor of safety Nc/N, decide if
adequate
109
Simplify tunnel geometry
1. Axis depth: Most accurate probably to obtain depth to
tunnel centroid, if known. In this case, take depth to
mid-height (21m b.g.l.)
2. Tunnel diameter: If the proposed tunnel shape is fully
defined e.g. in a CAD model, then obtain excavated area
Aexcav and calculate Dequivalent as p(Dequivalent)2/4 = Aexcav
In this case Aexcav not known so estimate D as
average of given width and height.
D = (12.5 + 8.23)/2 = 10.4m
110
Calculate stability number at collapse Nc
– Information needed is C, D and P
– C is always to top of stiff impermeable material in
an undrained stability problem, hence
C = 16 – D/2 = 16 – 10.4/2 = 10.8m
– Assume P = 1m. This is common for SCL, although
could be 1.2m or 1.5m
– Hence C/D = 1.04, P/D = 0.096 ≈ 0.1
– Read from Kimura and Mair (1981) critical stability
ratio chart
111
Nc = 5.6
112
Establish soil profile at site
– Available data for strength of London clay shows increase
of su with depth approximately linearly which is typical
– Two decisions to be made: Which line to use, and where
to set top of clay in our example
Strength data line to use:
– Whether to take the mean line or the lower bound will be
discussed later in the day under Selection of Geotechnical
Parameters
– In this example, we will take the mean line su = 116 + 5.3z
113
Top of clay level
– For mean line su = 116 + 5.3z we need to decide where to
measure depth z from.
– The data provided is clearly from a different site to ours
because depth to top of LC is 10m not 5m. The data may in fact
be from several sites that have been ‘normalised’ so that top of
LC has been set at 10m b.g.l. for all sites
– Our site has top LC 5m b.g.l. Conceptually either (i) we have 5m
alluvium removed compared to the given data or (ii) we have
5m extra LC on top and then 5m less alluvium. Decision as to
which is better assumption would need better understanding of
relative locations of sites.
– We will assume (i), so that z measured from top of our LC
114
Clay undrained strength
– We will assume z measured from top of our LC
– Our tunnel is shallow, C/D < 3
– Hence, we need value of su at the average depth between the
top of LC and the axis level of our tunnel. This is 16/2 = 8m
below top of LC
– Hence z = 8m in equation su = 116 + 5.3z
– Hence su = 158 kN/m2
115
Stability number N
– N = (sv – sT)/su
– No support pressure (open-faced, no compressed air) so
sT = 0
– sv is calculated from overburden pressure due to total
depth of soil above axis level of the tunnel
– Hence, = (21m) x (20 kN/m3) = 420 kN/m2
– su = 158 kN/m2
– Hence, N = 420/158 = 2.66
Factor of safety
– Nc/N = 5.6/2.66 = 2.11 > 1.4 → OK
116
Hence adequate factor of safety using the mean soil
strength profile line
If the lower bound line su = 80 + 5.1z = 120.8kN/m2
had been used then N = 3.48 and F.O.S. = 5.6/3.48 =
1.61, also OK
If F.O.S. had not been satisfactory, then try sub-
dividing the face. For each construction pattern,
calculate the average diameter of each heading as
in this example. Some examples on next slide.
117
SCL construction sequences
Top heading and bench Side wall drift
118
Stability in sand
Stability in non-cohesive
frictional materials is governed
by the angle of friction f’ of the
material
Limit state analyses have
similar failure geometries to
those found in centrifuge tests
A limit equilibrium solution
exists (based on Horn, 1961)
Failure mechanism (Horn, 1961)
119
Drained stability (dry sand)
Figure shows dry sand stability

solutions for Plane Strain tunnels
(P/D=infinity) and Lined headings
(P/D=0), from Mair & Taylor (1997)
120
Drained stability (sand) – example
Atkinson & Potts upper and lower bounds for infinite
unlined tunnel – agreed well with centrifuge and 1g
tests, which always fell between the two lines
Take sT/gD = 0.2, as midway between Atkinson and
Potts upper and lower bound solutions
For g = 18 kN/m3 (soil self-weight) and D = 4.850m:
sT = 0.2 × 18 × 4.850 = 17.5 kN/m2 = 17.5 kPa
1 bar pressure = 100 kPa, hence sT = 0.175 bar
Achievable in compressed air, BUT all the above is
assuming the sand is dry
121
Effect of seepage
Presence of water in
the ground in
cohesionless soils will
cause (if not resisted)
seepage into the face
and an additional
inward force causing
instability
We will explore this
issue further in EPB
machine face stability
Anagnostou & Kovari (1996)
122
Cohesion helps
Standing face in lightly cemented gravelly sand
123
Summary – open face stability
Tunnel heading stability is governed by fundamental
mechanisms of failure of the soil mass into the tunnel that
can be observed in laboratory tests, numerical models and in
the field
The failure mechanisms and hence the stability factor of
safety are different for cohesive (clay) vs. cohesionless (dry
sand) soils
For cohesive soils, theoretical solutions exist but the practice
is to use the design charts based on stability number by
Kimura and Mair
For sands, theoretical solutions exist (that seem to indicate
not much support needed) but are only valid for dry sands
124
References
Anagnostou, G. & Kovari, K. (1996). Face stability in slurry and EPB shield
tunnelling. Geotechnical Aspects of Underground Construction in Soft
Ground (eds Mair & Taylor), pp.453-458. Rotterdam: Balkema.
Atkinson, J.H. (2007). The Mechanics of Soils and Foundations, Second
Edition, Chapter 19. CRC Press.
Atkinson, J.H. & Potts, D.M. (1977). Stability of a shallow circular tunnel
in cohesionless soil. Geotechnique, 27 (2), 203-215.
Augarde, C.E., Lyamin, A.V. & Sloan, S.W. Stability of an undrained plane
strain heading revisited. Computers and Geotechnics 30, 419–430
Broms, B.B. & Bennermark, H. (1967). Stability of clay in vertical
openings. Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, 193,
71–94.
125
References (2)
Davis, E.H., Gunn, M.J., Mair, R.J. & Seneviratne, H.N. (1980). The stability of
shallow tunnels and underground openings in cohesive material.
Geotechnique, 30 (4), 397-419.
Dimmock, P.S. & Mair, R.J. (2007). Estimating volume loss for open-face
tunnels in London Clay. Proc. Institution of Civil Engineers (Geotechnical
Engineering), 160 (1), 13-22.
Kimura, T. & Mair, R.J. (1981). Centrifugal testing of model tunnels in soft clay.
Proc. 10th Int. Conf. Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Stockholm,
Vol. 1, 319–322.
Leca, E. & Dormieux, L. (1990). Upper and lower bound solutions for the face
stability of shallow circular tunnels in frictional material. Geotechnique, 40 (4),
581-605.
Mair, R.J. (1979). Centrifugal modelling of tunnel construction in soft clay. PhD
thesis, University of Cambridge.
126
References (3)
Mair, R.J. (1993). Unwin Memorial Lecture 1992 – Developments in
geotechnical engineering research: applications to tunnels and deep
excavations. Proc. Institution of Civil Engineers (Civil Engineering), 97 (1), 27-
41.
Mair, R. J. & Taylor, R. N. (1997). Bored tunnelling in the urban environment.
Theme Lecture, Plenary Session 4. Proc. 14th Int. Conf. Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Engineering, Hamburg, Vol.4, 2353-2385.
Messerli, J., Pimentel, E. & Anagnostou, G. (2010). Experimental study into
tunnel face collapse in sand. Physical Modelling in Geotechnics (eds
Springman, Laue & Seward), 575-580. London: Taylor & Francis.
Oblozinsky, P. & Kuwano, J. (2004). Centrifuge experiments on stability of
tunnel face. Slovak Journal of Civil Engineering, 3, 23-29.
127
Closed face Tunnel Boring
Machines
129
130
131
Key Components of a Closed Face TBM
132
Slurry Shield
133
Mixshield
134
Earth pressure balance (EPB) TBM
135
Machine selection to suit geological conditions
Permeability
–– 10
Cobbles
–– 1
Coarse gravel –– 10
-1
Slurry
Permeability Factor k (m/s)

-2
Medium gravel –– 10
–– -3
10
Fine gravel –– 10
-4
Coarse sand –– 10
-5
Medium sand –– 10
-6
Fine sand –– 10
-7
Sandy, Silty clay –– 10

-8
Silt –– 10
-9
- 10
EPB
–– 10
–– - 11
10
Use of EPB
Clay –– 10
- 12 injection Materials
136
137
Different Cutting Heads for Different Ground
Rock Rock Cutting Head
Cobbles –– 10
–– 1
Coarse gravel –– 10 - 1
-2
–– 10
Medium gravel
–– 10 - 3
Cutting Head for
Fine gravel –– 10 - 4
Mixed Soil
–– 10 - 5
Coarse sand
–– 10 - 6
Medium sand
–– 10 - 7
Fine sand
–– 10 - 8
Sandy, Silty clay Cutting Head for
–– 10 - 9
Silt Soft Soil

–– 10 - 10
–– 10 - 11
Clay –– 10 - 12
138
Multi-Mode TBM (EPB TBM with
compressed air)
139
Rear view of TBM showing shove rams and
segment erector
140
TBM with back up trailers
All the necessary electrical and hydraulic equipment is

pulled along behind the TBM as it advances.
A mobile tunnel factory !
141
Main drive assembly
142
Installing main
drive assembly
into shield body
143
Cutterhead and main drive assembly
144
Factory assembly of first Crossrail TBM
145
TBM assembly on site at Westbourne Park
146
Machine Launch
147
Crusher jaws in front of suction grill
148
TBM control room
149
Mixshield TBMs
Seite 150
Mixshield slurry machine
151
Mixshield for Hastings Tunnel
152
Mixshield operation
153
Slurry separation
Tunnelling & Underground Space
Contents
Bentonite properties, slurries, mixing tools
Slurry separation and treatment plants
Scalping, settling, desanding, desilting
Hydrocyclone, centrifuge, filter presses
Slurry disposal
155
Slurry treatment plants
Soils mixed with bentonite at the face of the
TBM
Slurry containing soil and bentonite pumped
from the TBM to the surface for separation
Bentonite is separated from the soil and
recycled for use at the face of the TBM
Soil extracted from the slurry is then disposed
of, either off-site at an appropriate waste
disposal facility or re-used as fill material
156
Slurry circuit
157
Slurry circuit
158
Separation plant for large slurry machine
159
Excavated material removed from slurry
by separation plant
160
Bentonite properties
the name bentonite is popularly used for a range of
natural clay minerals, principally potassium, calcium and
sodium montmorillonites
the term smectite is also used for the group of minerals
which includes montmorillonites.
because of the chemistry and microstructure of
bentonite, it has a strong ability to absorb water and is
able to hold up to ten times its dry volume by absorption
of water
usually supplied as a powder with maximum particle size
150 microns
161
Bentonite slurries
Bentonite slurries are made by adding bentonite to
fresh water and mixing in a high-shear mixer (to ensure
proper dispersal of the clay particles)
Quantity of bentonite powder added depends on
quality of the bentonite and desired viscosity. 4-6% by
weight is typical
Then the slurry is left for a recommended time
(normally at least 12 hours) to ensure sufficient
hydration of the clay
162
Thixotropy
Bentonite slurries are thixotropic and typically
form a gel at concentrations above about 3% if
allowed to stand, returning to liquid when
agitated
163
gel agitated slurry
Viscosity
High viscosity is better for stability of the
excavation and not filtering too far into
the ground (especially in open gravels)
Low viscosity is better for pumping and for
desanding, but too low and soil particles
will settle out of the gel if pumping is
interrupted, possibly causing blockages
164
Typical slurry properties
min set to minimise filtration loss into the max set to limit pumping and
ground and prevent segregation material cost
FPS (2006)
165
Bentonite mixing tanks
www.mud-process.com
166
Slurry holding tank
167
Bentonite slurry circuit
http://oilfield.gnsolidscontrol.com/equipments-for-slurry-treatment-plant/
168
Slurry treatment plant
169
Slurry treatment plants
These plants comprise four sections:
scalping / desanding / desilting

recycled mud management
excess mud management
surface and drainage waters management
170
Slurry separation plant
Maidl et al. (2012)
171
Scalping
Removal of coarse grained materials is carried
out using trommels or vibrating screens
Trommels are rotating drums with screens
around the perimeter of the drum
Coarse material is retained on the screen as the
drum rotates and is then discharged at the end
of the drum
Vibrating screens will typically be used to
remove particles larger than about 3-5mm
172
Vibrating screens
www.mud-process.com
173
Settling tanks
Finer material may then be allowed to settle out
in settlement tanks, probably with the assistance
of flocculating agents
However this is a slow process which is usually
only suitable for the final stage of treatment of
waste water before disposal to drains
174
Desanding /desilting
Desanding/desilting of the slurry is
undertaken in a series of high-performance
hydrocyclones
The number of hydrocyclone stages
depends on the geological type of the soils
excavated
Sands are dewatered within the
hydrocyclones in order to obtain a minimal
residual water content
Cyclones may be used for accelerated
removal of particles down to about 0.1mm
in a single stage or 0.02mm in two stages
175
Hydrocyclone section
http://oilfield.gnsolidscontrol.com/
www.mud-process.com
176
Hydrocyclone
177
Centrifuges
Centrifuges may be used to
remove particles down to 5
microns (fine silt) or smaller
Centrifuges can only handle
relatively small throughputs
They may be used to clean
part of the carrying fluid
(slurry) for re-use in the
machine, while the
remainder is re-circulated
without treatment
178
Flocculation
A flocculent is introduced to the
centrifuge bowl.
Example flocculent is a polymer
which carries a number of positive
or negative charges along its
length.
These charges attract an opposite
charge on the micron-sized
particles in the slurry, binding them
together to produce heavier
particles that are more easily
separated out in the centrifuge
179
Filter presses
Sludge from settlement tanks or cyclones may be
further dewatered using belt presses to produce a
material more suitable for tipping
Plumstead separation plant –

Crossrail Thames Tunnel
180
Slurry disposal
Conditioning agents in the slurry have to be
chosen so as not to jeopardise the performance
of the separation plant
Different agents may be used to enhance the
separation process
Any agents remaining in the waste for disposal
should not cause it to be classified as special
waste with consequently high disposal costs
181
Solids disposal
http://youtu.be/ylqb0kUt5sM
182
Sources and further reading
www.gnsolidscontrol.com
www.m-s.fr/pdf/Ref_tunn_angl.pdf
Chapman D., Metje, N and Stark, A. 2010. Introduction to Tunnel
Construction. 3rd ed. Abingdon: Spon Press
Gilligan, G. W. E. 2000. Lubrication and soil conditioning in tunnelling, pipe
jacking and microtunnelling. London: Geotechnical Consulting Group.
Federation of Piling Specialists (2006). Bentonite support fluids in civil
engineering, 2nd Edition, 27pp.
Maidl, B., Herrenknecht, M., Maidl, U., Wehrmeyer, G. & Sturge, D. S.
(2012). Mechanised Shield Tunnelling, 2nd edition. Berlin: Ernst & Sohn.
183
Slurry machine face stability
SMART tunnel, Malaysia, 2003-2006
slurry machine
37 incidents
mixed face, karst
185
Circle Line 4, Singapore, 23rd May 2008
Slurry mixshield
Cause: “loose ground”
186
Slurry support
Slurry support works by applying a fluid pressure to the
face
The slurry pressure must be equal to the groundwater
pressure + required effective support pressure + allowance
for variation in pressure (GEO Report 249)
As the slurry penetrates into the face it forms a ‘filter cake’
Required effective support pressure can be calculated – see
Anagnostou & Kovari (1996).
Analysis based on bentonite slurries although polymer-
based slurries are becoming more popular nowadays
187
Slurry pressure must be > groundwater pressure to
prevent a seepage flow towards the face and hence
instability of the ground
Therefore, slurry infiltrates into the ground
But, the less the slurry infiltrates, the greater the
support force will be
Perfect situation is formation of a filter cake on the
tunnel face, acting like a membrane and preventing
further infiltration
Support force is the difference between slurry pressure
and groundwater pressure
188
Filter cake
Thick cake Thin cake No cake
Mina et al. (2013)
189
TUNNEL
190
Limit equilibrium model Gravity for acting
downwards
after Horn (1961)
assumes a sliding
system of blocks Friction forces
Wedge angle w resisting block
movements on all
faces
(Slurry pressure – Water pressure)
191
Solution to model
Anagnostou and Kovari early work (1994 paper) solves limit
equilibrium model for different geometries assuming no
slurry penetration into face
192
Solution to model (2)
Hong Kong GEO Report 249, Section 3.2.1
Pressure at crown, PSt(crown) = u + Dp
– Where u is the water pressure at the crown
Dp = effective soil pressure (s’) + pressure due to surcharge
(q) (if any) + allowance for variation in pressure (v)
– v is typically taken as 0.2 bar (20 kN/m2) or 25 kN/m2
s‘ = F0g’D – F1c’
– Where D is the tunnel diameter
– c‘ is the cohesion (frequently taken as zero in granular materials)
– g’ is the buoyant unit weight of the soil ≈ 10 kN/m3
– F0 and F1 are factors from charts provided by Anagnostou and Kovari
(1996) from their solutions to wedge limit equilibrium problem
193
Anagnostou and Kovari (1996)
194
Slurry penetration
For soils with exceptionally high permeability, or

when the shear resistance of the slurry is low, the
bentonite will penetrate into the ground
Final distance of penetration emax can be estimated:
∆𝑝. 𝑑10
𝑒𝑚𝑎𝑥 =
2𝜏𝑓
where: Dp = excess slurry pressure

d10 = characteristic grain size (10th percentile)
tf = yield strength of slurry (depends on
bentonite concentration)
195
Typical characteristic grain sizes, d10
d10 size
196
Slurry yield strength
Typical values
Bentonite slurry % by Shear strength tf

weight
4% 15 N/m2
7% 80 N/m2
(Anagnostou and Kovari, 1994)
Note: Slurry unit weight typically taken as 12 kN/m3

197
Slurry penetration
∆𝑝.𝑑10
𝑒𝑚𝑎𝑥 =
2𝜏𝑓
Geomaterial d10 tf (4% Dp emax

bentonite)
Medium gravel 6 mm 15 Pa 20 kPa 4.0m
Fine gravel 2 mm 15 Pa 20 kPa 1.33m
Coarse sand 0.6 mm 15 Pa 20 kPa 0.4m
Medium sand 0.2 mm 15 Pa 20 kPa 0.133m
Fine sand 0.06 mm 15 Pa 20 kPa 0.04m
198
Slurry penetration
∆𝑝.𝑑10
𝑒𝑚𝑎𝑥 =
2𝜏𝑓
Geomaterial d10 tf (7% Dp emax

bentonite)
Medium gravel 6 mm 80 Pa 20 kPa 1.5m
Fine gravel 2 mm 80 Pa 20 kPa 0.5m
Coarse sand 0.6 mm 80 Pa 20 kPa 0.15m
Medium sand 0.2 mm 80 Pa 20 kPa 0.05m
Fine sand 0.06 mm 80 Pa 20 kPa 0.015m
199
Slurry penetration
When slurry Wedge
infiltrates into soil, it mechanism
exerts a mass force
equal to the
pressure gradient
Support force may
then be calculated
by integrating the
mass forces over the
slurry-saturated
zone of the wedge
200
Factor of safety
201
Excavation stand-stills
If the TBM is stopped, the slurry will continue to
penetrate in a time-dependent fashion
• tcr represents the stand-up time of the tunnel face, which

can be calculated analytically (Anagnostou & Kovari, 1994)
202
Summary
Slurry machines maintain face stability and limit
settlements by applying a slurry pressure to the face
which counteracts the groundwater pressure plus
provides an extra component of effective stress to resist
the potential collapse mechanism. A further component
of pressure is required when recognising that slurry
pressure may fluctuate during tunnelling.
The slurry (bentonite or polymer based) works by
penetrating into the face to form a filter cake. If the
penetration is too far, e.g. during a stoppage or if the soil
grain size is large, then the slurry support loses
effectiveness - the FOS against collapse reduces.
203
Slurry machine example
2m
Water table
15m
Soft alluvium
g = 19 kN/m3
f‘ = 22.5°
c‘ = 5 kPa
6m
204
Slurry machine example
1. Calculate the required effective support pressure,
applying an appropriate F.O.S. to f’ in accordance with
Eurocode, and ignoring beneficial effect of cohesion.
2. Calculate target minimum slurry pressure at the crown,
assuming slurry pressure can be controlled to ± 20 kPa
and assuming 50 kPa surcharge. Plot slurry pressure
variation with depth.
205
Solution to slurry face stability
model (recap)
Hong Kong GEO Report 249, Section 3.2.1
Pressure at crown, PSt(crown) = u + Dp
– Where u is the water pressure at the crown
Dp = effective soil pressure (s’) + pressure due to surcharge
(q) (if any) + allowance for variation in pressure (v)
– v is typically taken as 0.2 bar (20 kN/m2) or 25 kN/m2
s‘ = F0g’D – F1c’
– Where D is the tunnel diameter
– c‘ is the cohesion (frequently taken as zero in granular materials)
– g’ is the buoyant unit weight of the soil ≈ 10 kN/m3
– F0 and F1 are factors from charts provided by Anagnostou and Kovari
(1996) from their solutions to wedge limit equilibrium problem
206
Slurry machine example - solution
F.O.S. gM on tan f’ = 1.25 (Eurocode 7). Hence f’design=
18.3°
PSt(crown) = u + Dp = u + s’ + v + q
q = 50 kPa, v = 20 kPa.
Water table height above crown = 15 – 2 – 6/2 = 10m.
Hence u = 10 x gw = 100 kPa
s‘ = F0g’D – F1c’ = F0g’D ignoring cohesion in this part of
the question.
D = 6m, g’ = g – gw = 19 – 10 = 9 kN/m3
Obtain F0 from Anagnostou and Kovari chart. Input data
to chart is D = 6m, H = 15-6/2= 12m, h0 =15+6/2-2=16m
207
Obtain F0 from Anagnostou and Kovari chart. Input data to
chart is D = 6m, H = 15-6/2= 12m, h0 =15+6/2-2=16m
Hence H/D = 2
h0/D= 2.67, hence h0 = 2.67D. This doesn’t appear as an
option in the chart. Therefore, best estimate is to
interpolate for h0/D between the lines we do have, which
are for h0 = 1.5D (dashed lines) and h0 = H + D (solid lines)
In our case h0 = H + D would mean h0 = 12 + 6 = 18 = 3D
Hence interpolate between dashed and solid lines
according to 1.5D ↔2.67D ↔3D
(2.67-1.5)/(3-1.5) = 78%. Calculate as 78% up in the interval
between the dashed line for H/D=2 and the solid line for H/D=2
208
H/D=2 F0 = 0.67
H/D=2
F0 = 0.57
209
Hence from chart, two values of F0 when H/D = 2
are:
F0 = 0.57 for h0 = 1.5D and F0 = 0.67 for h0 = H + D
Hence by interpolation, F0 = 0.65
From Slide 25, s‘ = F0g’D = 0.65 x 9 x 6 = 35 kPa
PSt(crown) = u + s’ + v + q = 100 + 35 + 20 +50 =205 kPa
This is pressure at crown. Slurry pressure increases
with unit weight of slurry, assumed gs = 12 kN/m3.
Hence at invert, PSt(inv) = 205 + 12 x 6 = 277 kPa
210
Plot variation of slurry pressure with depth
PSt(crown) = 205 kPa
PSt(inv) = 277 kPa
211
References
Anagnostou, G. & Kovari, K. (1994). The face stability of slurry-shield-
driven tunnels. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 9 (2),
165-174.
Anagnostou, G. & Kovari, K. (1996). Face stability in slurry and EPB
shield tunnelling. Geotechnical Aspects of Underground Construction
in Soft Ground (eds Mair & Taylor), pp.453-458. Rotterdam:
Balkema.
Golder Associates (HK) Ltd. (2009). Ground Control for slurry TBM
tunnelling. GEO Report 249.
Mina, F., Zhub, W. & Hand, X. (2013). Filter cake formation for slurry
shield tunneling in highly permeable sand. Tunnelling and
Underground Space Technology, 38, 423-430.
212
Earth Pressure Balance Machines
Earth Pressure Balance Machine
214
EPBM operation
215
MSc Tunnelling & Underground
Space
Soil conditioning in Earth Pressure
Balance Machines
217
Contents
Soil conditioning – where and why used
Conditioning products
Foam – expansion and injection ratios
Foam generation
Soil and foam types
Test methods for conditioned soil
218
Soil conditioning (1)
In general, the closer a soil is to being well-graded,
the better the conditions for EPB tunnelling.
In order to improve sub-optimal soils, the
following conditioning agents can be added:
– water
– polymers (water absorbing/coagulants)
– polymers (ground improving)
– foam
– fine materials (bentonite, clay)
– clay dispersants
219
Soil conditioning (2)
With the EPB technique, soil conditioning
products are generally injected ahead of the
cutterhead and often also into the excavation
chamber and screw conveyor
By correctly choosing and adapting this material
and its recipe to the encountered soil and
ground water conditions, it can permit
excavation of a wide range of soil types using the
same TBM
220
Soil conditioning - objectives
Creates a soft, cohesive, plastic, paste-like, pulpy
consistency, allowing an even and controlled
supporting pressure at the face and an effective
plug and controlled extrusion in the screw
conveyor, and prevents water inflow and instability
Can reduce the stickiness of plastic clays (that can
lead to clogging of the cutterhead)
Can lubricate, which minimises TBM drive power
usage, minimises wear on cutterhead face plates,
tools and screw conveyor, and reduces friction and
heat build-up
221
Earth pressure distribution diagram
Excavation chamber
100%
Low pressure gradient
95% Screw conveyor
Injection 0%
90%
50%
70%
85%
80%
Discharge
Without injection
Plug
Earth With injection
area
Pressure
100%
80% 50%
70%
0% Tunnelling Equipment
222
Soil Conditioning in Head
223
Ideal EPB material
224
Too wet!
225
Conditioning Costs
Application Cost / m3 (solid)
Reduce stickiness of cohesive soils £0.70

(Foam)
Convert stiff clay into EPB material £3.00

(Foam)
Reduce friction in fine grained Sand £1.00

(Foam)
Plug formation in high permeability Sands and Gravels £6.00

(Foam & Polymer)
Total Cost
(including treatment for disposal)
Conditioning Costs /m3 = £0.70 - £6.00
Lime Stabilisation /m3 = £5.00 - £25.00
227
EPB – removing the screw
228
Conditioned soil in the screw
229
Unconditioned soil in the face
230
Unconditioned
soil in the face
231
Particle size distribution for EPB TBM
232
Conditioning products (1)
Foam
creation of a homogeneous soil paste
makes soil more cohesive and more deformable
permeability reduction
increases compressibility to reduce pressure
fluctuations and shocks/vibrations
reduces stickiness of adhesive soils to metal
surfaces
improves plug formation in the screw
lubrication
233
Conditioning products (2)
Polymers:
improve plastic behaviour
lubrication
reduce stickiness of cohesive soils, reducing the
risk of cake formation and blockage or clogging
make soils with low fines content more cohesive,
allowing better plug formation and extrusion
may be injected into screw to help form plug
water-reducing polymers reduce the consistency
of soils that are too wet
234
Before…
235
during…
236
after…
237
Concentration of product in water
Cp = mp / mliquid
Cp = concentration of product (liquid polymer) in

water
mp = mass of liquid product (polymer)
mliquid = mass of total liquid (product + water)
Cp is generally between 0.1 and 2%, and dosed in the

water prior to injection
238
Polymer Injection Ratio
PIR = Vwp /Vsoil
PIR = polymer injection ratio

Vwp = volume of polymer dosed water
Vsoil = volume of in situ soil to be excavated
Typically, PIR is between 20 and 60%, and is

mainly dependent on the soil’s water content
239
Concentration of foam product in water
Cf = mf / mfoam
Cf = concentration of product in water

mf = mass of product (foaming agent)
mfoam = mass of foam solution (product + water)
Cf is generally between 0.5 and 4%, with

concentration increasing with soil water content
and/or soil particle size
use dry foam for wet soil and wet foam for dry soil
240
Foam Expansion Ratio
FER = Vf / Vliquid
FER = Foam Expansion Ratio

Vf = volume of foam
Vliquid = volume of original foaming agent + water
as liquid before passing through foam generator
Values of FER typically between 6 and 18
241
Foam Injection Ratio
FIR = Vf /Vsoil
FIR = foam injection ratio

Vf = volume of foam
Vsoil = volume of in situ soil to be excavated
Typically, FIR is between 20 and 60%, and is

mainly dependent on the soil’s water content
242
Cf, FER, FIR recap
Cf =
Concentration of FER = Foam FIR = Foam
foam additive expansion ratio injection ratio
courtesy Dave Schulkins, Mapei
243
Soil conditioning - foam
244
EFNARC foam types
Foam Polymer
Soil A B C FIR
CLAY 30-80 Anti-clogging polymer
Sandy CLAY & 40-60 Anti-clogging polymer
SILT
SAND & clayey 20-40 Polymer for consistency control
SILT
SAND 30-40 Polymer for cohesiveness and consistency control
Clayey GRAVEL 25-50 Polymer for cohesiveness and consistency control
Sandy GRAVEL 30-60 Polymer for cohesiveness and consistency control
A: high dispersing capacity (breaking clay bonds and/or good coating capacity
(reduce softening and swelling effects)
B: general purpose, with medium stability
C: high stability and anti-segregation properties to develop and maintain a cohesive
soil as impermeable as possible
245
246
Test methods for conditioned soil
Cone penetrometer test (BS EN1377 or NF P94-051) -
determination of fluidising effect of additives on fine
soils (clay/silts)
Slump test using a standard concrete test method -
determination of fluidising effect of additives on coarse
soils (sands, silty sands) - about 12cm is the ideal slump
Shear tests (simple shear box) - determination of the
change in internal friction before/after modification
with a foam solution
Torque tests - vane test on material passing 5mm sieve
with foam
247
Sources and further reading
Pressurised TBM Tunnelling Conference Sessions. Cutting Edge Tunnelling Journal
Conference, Miami, Florida 2012. http://www.smenet.org/page/index.cfm?id=1045
Milligan, G. W. E. 2000. Lubrication and soil conditioning: state of the art review. London:
Geotechnical Consulting Group
EFNARC (2005). Specification and guidelines for the use of specialist products for
mechanised tunnelling in soft ground and hard rock. www.efnarc.org
Pena Duarte, M. A. (2007). Foam as a soil conditioner in tunnelling: physical and mechanical
properties of conditioned sands. DPhil Thesis, University of Oxford.
http://www.eng.ox.ac.uk/civil/publications/theses/penaduarte.pdf
Psomas, S. (2001). Properties of foam/sand mixtures for tunnelling applications. MSc Thesis,
University of Oxford.
Schulkins, R., Boscaro, A. & dal Negro, E. (2011). Ground conditioning in practice. Tunnelling
Journal, September 2011, 32-36.
http://viewer.zmags.com/publication/c8a3ac6b#/c8a3ac6b/33
BTS (2005). Closed face tunnelling machines and ground stability – a guideline for best
practice, 77pp. London: Thomas Telford.
248
Earth Pressure Balance Machine
face stability
EPB machine
Merritt & Mair (2008)
250
EPB machine operation
Excavated spoil is mixed with soil conditioners
as required in the front chamber to form a
paste
Paste provides support to the face – need to
maintain ideally over whole face
Pressure difference between face and
atmospheric is dropped in the screw conveyor.
To increase face pressure, reduce screw
rotation speed or increase thrust on rams
251
Range of application
BTS (2005)
252
EPB machine stability
Main difference compared to slurry:
– there is always seepage of groundwater towards
the face in front of an EPB machine
Effective support pressure created by ‘grain-
to-grain’ contacts
Water pressure in the chamber reduces the
hydraulic gradient and hence the
destabilising seepage forces in the ground
253
Mechanism
Same wedge failure
mechanism assumed
as for slurry machine
design, but with
addition of seepage
effects
254
Definitions
255
Seepage forces
Seepage forces are

perpendicular to
contour lines
Effective support
pressure
Resultant block
forces
256
Seepage model
Determination of the seepage forces can only be
done using a 3D seepage flow analysis
257
Effective support pressure
Anagnostou and Kovari (1996) performed such
analyses and derived the following empirical
relation:
Effective support
pressure
Where Dh is the difference between the
water pressure head (in metres) in the
ground (h0) and in the chamber of the
machine (hf). c is cohesion of the soil
g‘ is the submerged unit weight (e.g. 10 kN/m3)
258
Effective support pressure (2)
Effective Gravity Benefit of Seepage Benefit of

support force on cohesion force cohesion
pressure wedge
259
260
261
Practical issues
A high effective support pressure can
cause problems for the machine operation
especially when f’ is also high:
– Uneven and uncontrollable support pressure
distribution
– Excessive cutter wear and high torque
requirement
– Arching at entrance to screw conveyor making
it difficult to extract spoil
262
Practical issues (2)
Uneven pressure
distribution
Cutter wear
and torque
Arching at
conveyor
263
Practical issues (3)
To minimise s’, need to minimise h0, the head
difference between the water in ground ahead
of the tunnel, and that in the machine chamber
In other words, drop the head difference in the
screw conveyor rather than between ground and
machine chamber
– Impermeable plug in screw conveyor
– Pressurising pump at the discharge of the
conveyor
264
EPB machine
h0 hf h=0
Or h>0 with pump
265
Loss of head in screw conveyor
Anagnostou and Kovari

(1996b)
266
Example calculation
See handout
267
Summary – EPB face stability
EPB machines are generally used in finer-grained soils –
silts and clays. They can make it through coarser materials
with the aid of soil conditioning such as foams.
There is no filter cake and so groundwater seepage into
the machine through the face is inevitable.
The greater the inflow the greater the effective soil stress
needed to counteract, which is bad for machine
performance.
Ideal strategy to minimise inflow is to hold water pressure
in plenum high with impermeable plug in screw or extra
pump at screw discharge.
268
References
Anagnostou, G. & Kovari, K. (1996). Face stability in slurry and EPB shield
tunnelling. Geotechnical Aspects of Underground Construction in Soft
Ground (eds Mair & Taylor), pp.453-458. Rotterdam: Balkema.
Anagnostou, G. & Kovari, K. (1996b). Face Stability Conditions with
Earth-Pressure-Balanced Shields. Tunnelling and Underground Space
Technology, 11(2), 163-173.
Mair, R. J. & Taylor, R. N. (1997). Bored tunnelling in the urban
environment. Theme Lecture, Plenary Session 4. Proc. 14th Int. Conf. Soil
Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Hamburg, Vol.4.
Merritt, A.S. & Mair, R.J. (2006). Mechanics of tunnelling machine screw
conveyors: model tests. Geotechnique, 56(9), 605-615.
Merritt, A.S. & Mair, R.J. (2008). Mechanics of tunnelling machine screw
conveyors: a theoretical model. Geotechnique, 58(2), 79-94.
269
Variable density TBMs
270
Variable Density TBM
Combining the advatages of EPB and Mixshield TBM
271
Variable Density TBM range of operation
EPB Methods Mixshield Methods
Sieve size
Silt Sand Gravel
Clay Fine Medium Coarse Fine Medium Coarse Fine Medium Coarse
100
90
?
80
?
70
60
?
50
HDSM
40
30
Possible enhanced curve
20 ?
10
0
0.001 0.002 0.006 0.02 0.06 0.2 0.6 2.0 6.0 20.0 60.0 100 200 500
Grain diameter d (mm)
EPB
Mixshield
Variable Density TBM
EPB LDSM HDSM

Seite 272

TBM

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

TBM

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Introduction

Wast Hills Tunnel,

Cities with insufficient shelter

Insufficient Infrastructure and services

Overcrowded transportation systems

Inadequate water supplies

Chongming under River Tunnels, Shanghai.

Higher water pressures Lower overburdens

More heterogeneous and difficult ground conditions

They fail because of:

Centrifuge model of a heading in sand,

Centrifuge tests of tunnel headings in sand by Potts (1976) and Cording et

Centrifuge tests of tunnel

Lower bound stress field Upper bound failure mechanism

Design charts from Mair & Taylor, 1997

Cover C is measured to top of

For shallow tunnel (C/D<3) take

For deep tunnel (C/D >=3) use

C P N/Nc P N/Nc P N/Nc

Cover C is measured to top of

‘Mean’ line For shallow tunnel (C/D<3) take

Top heading and bench Split top heading/bench/invert

Side wall drift Double side wall drift

Top heading and bench Side wall drift

Figure shows dry sand stability

Standing face in lightly cemented gravelly sand

Permeability Factor k (m/s)

Sandy, Silty clay –– 10

Rock Rock Cutting Head

Silt Soft Soil

All the necessary electrical and hydraulic equipment is

These plants comprise four sections:

scalping / desanding / desilting

Maidl et al. (2012)

Plumstead separation plant –

Thick cake Thin cake No cake

Mina et al. (2013)

(Slurry pressure – Water pressure)

For soils with exceptionally high permeability, or

where: Dp = excess slurry pressure

Bentonite slurry % by Shear strength tf

(Anagnostou and Kovari, 1994)

Note: Slurry unit weight typically taken as 12 kN/m3

Geomaterial d10 tf (4% Dp emax

Geomaterial d10 tf (7% Dp emax

• tcr represents the stand-up time of the tunnel face, which

PSt(crown) = 205 kPa

PSt(inv) = 277 kPa

95% Screw conveyor

Reduce stickiness of cohesive soils £0.70

Convert stiff clay into EPB material £3.00

Reduce friction in fine grained Sand £1.00

Plug formation in high permeability Sands and Gravels £6.00

Conditioning Costs /m3 = £0.70 - £6.00

Lime Stabilisation /m3 = £5.00 - £25.00

Cp = concentration of product (liquid polymer) in

Cp is generally between 0.1 and 2%, and dosed in the

PIR = Vwp /Vsoil

PIR = polymer injection ratio

Typically, PIR is between 20 and 60%, and is

Cf = concentration of product in water

Cf is generally between 0.5 and 4%, with

FER = Foam Expansion Ratio

Values of FER typically between 6 and 18