Reinforcing Effects around Face of Soil-Tunnel by Crown & Face-Reinforcing - Large Scale Model Testing

천단 및 막장면 수평보강에 의한 토사터널 보강효과 - 실대형실험

  • Published : 2006.06.01


One of the most popular pre-reinforcement methods of tunnel heading in cohesionless soils would be the fore-polling of grouted pipes, known as RPUM (reinforced protective umbrella method) or UAM (umbrella arch method). This technique allows safe excavation even in poor ground conditions by creating longitudinal arch parallel to the tunnel axis as the tunnel advances. Some previous studies on the reinforcing effects have been performed using numerical methods and/or laboratory-based small scale model tests. The complexity of boundary conditions imposes difficulties in representing the tunnelling procedure in laboratory tests and theoretical approaches. Full-scale study to identify reinforcing effects of the tunnel heading has rarely been carried out so far. In this study, a large scale model testing for a tunnel in granular soils was performed. Reinforcing patterns considered are four cases, Non-Reinforced, Crown-Reinforced, Crown & Face-Reinforced, and Face-Reinforced. The behavior of ground and pipes as reinforcing member were fully measured as the surcharge pressure applied. The influences of reinforcing pattern, pipe length, and face reinforcement were investigated in terms of stress and displacement. It is revealed that only the Face-Reinforced has decreased sufficiently both vertical settlement in tunnel heading and horizontal displacement on the face. Vertical stresses along the tunnel axis were concentrated in tunnel heading from the test results, so the heading should be reinforced before tunnel advancing. Most of maximum axial forces and bending moments for Crown-reinforced were measured at 0.75D from the face. Also it should be recommended that the minimum length of the pipe is more than l.0D for crown reinforcement.


  1. Anderson, J. M. (1996), Reducing Risk and Improving Safety with Particular Reference to NATM, Proc. North American Tunnelling '96, Balkema, pp.453-458
  2. Chambon, P. and Corte, J. F. (1994), Shallow Tunnels in Cohesionless Soil : Stability of Tunnel Face, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, Vol.120, No.7, pp.1148-1165
  3. Gnilsen, R. (1989), Numerical Analysis, Underground Structures Design and Instrumentation, Elsevier, Developments in Geotechnical Engineering, 59A, pp.84-128
  4. HSE (1996), Safety of New Austrian Tunnelling Methods (NATM) Tunnels - A review of sprayed concrete lined tunnels with particular reference to London Clay, Health and Safety Executive, UK, HSE Books, pp.87
  5. Leca, E. and Dormieux, L. (1990), Upper and Lower Bound Solutions for the Face Stability of Shallow Circular Tunnels in Frictional Material, Geotechnique, Vol.40, No.4, pp:581-606
  6. Peila, D. (1994), A Theoretical Study of Reinforcement Influence on the Stability of a Tunnel Face, Geotechnical and Geological Engineering, Vol.12, No.3, pp.145-168
  7. Peila, D., Oreste, P. P. and Pellizza, S. (1996), Study of the Influence of Sub-horizontal Fiber-glass Pipes on the Stability of a Tunnel Face, Proceedings of International Conference on North American Tunneling 96, Vol.1, pp.425-431
  8. Terzaghi, K. (1943), Theoretical Soil Mechanics, John Wiley &Sons, Inc. New York, pp.66-77
  9. Vlasov, S. N., Makovsky, L. V. and Merkin, V. E. (2001), Accidents in Transportation and Subway Tunnels, Elex-KM Publ. Moscow
  10. Walter W. (1990), Rock Mechanics: Theory and Appli- cations with Case Histories, Springer-Verlag, pp.444-471