Face Pressure Calculation Red Line-Dubai Metro

DUBAI RAPID LINK CONSORTIUM
DUBAI METRO PROJECT

RED LINE
Bored Tunnel
TBM Face Pressure Calculations
WS Atkins & Partners Overseas

Supported by Geoconsult Asia Singapore Pte. Ltd.
Dubai Metro Project – Red Line
TBM Face Pressure Calculations WS ATKINS & PARTNERS OVERSEAS
Table of Contents
0 REVISION RECORD...........................................................................................................................5
1 INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................6
1.1 General................................................................................................................................................6
2 SEQUENCING OF SETTLEMENT DESIGN DOCUMENTATION.....................................................7

2.1 Volume Loss Assessment...................................................................................................................7
2.2 Analysis of Ground Movements ..........................................................................................................7
2.3 Assessment of Construction Impact....................................................................................................7
2.4 TBM Face Pressure Calculations........................................................................................................7
3 ALIGNMENT .......................................................................................................................................8
4 GEOTECHNICAL................................................................................................................................9
4.1 Geotechnical Conditions .....................................................................................................................9
4.1.1 Tunnel Drive 1 – Southern Drive:........................................................................................................9
4.1.2 Tunnel Drive 2 – Northern Drive .......................................................................................................10
4.2 Design Parameters............................................................................................................................10
4.3 Factors of Safety ...............................................................................................................................11
5 CALCULATIONS ..............................................................................................................................12
5.1 Approach for Face Stability ...............................................................................................................12
5.1.1 Drained case .....................................................................................................................................12
5.1.2 Undrained case .................................................................................................................................12
5.2 Approach for Tail Void Grouting Pressure ........................................................................................12
5.3 Approach for Compressed Air Support .............................................................................................13
5.4 Calculation Sections..........................................................................................................................13
5.5 Analysis of Face Support Pressures .................................................................................................15
6 CONCLUSIONS................................................................................................................................17
6.1 General..............................................................................................................................................17
6.2 TBM Operation ..................................................................................................................................17
6.3 Check of surface settlements............................................................................................................18
7 REFERENCES..................................................................................................................................19
Appendices
Appendix 1 - Ground Model Plans
Appendix 2 - Geotechncial Input Parameters
Appendix 3 - Analysis Results – TBM Operation Parameters
Appendix 4 - Specific Reference Literature
Appendix 5 - Drawings with Specific requirements
Appendix 6 - Additional Discussions
Document No.: DM001-E-ACW-DDR-DR-DCC-339970 Date: 21 March 2007

Rev : B2
Page 3 of 19
0 REVISION RECORD
Revision Description of Amendments Date
A0 Draft Submission 04 October 206
A1 1st Submission – DCP3 09 October 2006
B1 DCP4 Submission – Replies to Engineer’s Comments 08 January 2007

incorporated (Transmittal ID: 002405)
B2 Re-submission with minor amendments: 21 March 2007

− Section 5.2 paragraph 2. , editorial amendment
− Section 6.3 added
− Appendix 3, Appendix page 6 added
− Appendix 3, minor editorial amendments to face pressure
tables
File:
D:\Changed\Dubai\TBM face press\Rev.B2\DM0001-E-ACW-DDR-DR-DCC-339970_(B2)TBM face press.doc

Rev : B2
Page 4 of 18
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 General
Dubai Rapid Link (DURL) has been awarded the contract for the design, construction, and
commissioning of the Dubai Metro Project Phase 1. The project has been divided into two phases.
Phase 1 (the Red Line) consists of 47.4km of elevated track with 25 over-ground stations and 4.7km of
subterranean track with 4 underground stations.
The tunnel section between the four underground stations will be constructed using an earth pressure
balanced tunnel boring machine (EPB TBM), providing active face support during advance by
maintaining specified pressures in the cutter head. For settlement minimisation the EPB TBM is
equipped with earth pressure chamber separated by a bulk head, screw conveyor system for muck
removal under pressurised condition and a tail void grouting system for backfilling the void between the
extrados of the segmental lining and the excavation circumference.
This document deals with calculations of TBM face support pressure, air support pressure during
interventions into the cutter head in flowing ground conditions.
Individual analysis cross sections are identified along the alignment. Based on the results of these
analyses, above parameters relevant for TBM operation are derived.
The report provides recommendations for the following TBM operation parameters:
• TBM face pressures to maintain stability of excavation face during tunnel excavation
• Air pressures for interventions into the cutter head under flowing groundwater conditions
• Pressures for tail void grouting system in order to control the volume loss within the values used to
derive ground settlements and for construction impact assessment.
During TBM driving, the recommended operation parameters shall be continuously controlled and
reviewed based on actual ground conditions encountered and interpretation of monitoring data.

Rev : B2
Page 5 of 18
2 SEQUENCING OF SETTLEMENT DESIGN DOCUMENTATION

This document is one in a sequence of four other design documents related to prediction and control of
tunnelling settlements. This document provides the last step in a sequence of designs and assessments
related to prediction of tunnelling settlements and deals with recommendations for the operation of the
TBM.
These documents are list below in their logical sequence. Brief additional descriptions are provided for
each document.
2.1 Volume Loss Assessment

This is the first document in the sequence.
The document is presenting a number of numerical analyses incorporating tunnel geometry, alignment,
typical range of overburden and geotechnical conditions prevailing along the project’s bored tunnel
alignment. Based on the results of these analyses typical percentages of design volume loss to be
expected during tunnelling can be established and relevant values for settlement trough parameter can
be validated.
2.2 Analysis of Ground Movements

Following the volume loss assessment, a prediction of magnitude and extent of ground movements
caused by bored tunnel works is carried out.
The prediction is based on the design volume loss and specific overburden and geotechnical conditions
along the tunnel alignment. From this, the zone of influence of construction induced ground movements
is determined.
2.3 Assessment of Construction Impact

As the next step in the sequence, this document is presenting the potential impact of ground movement
due to bored tunnel construction on buildings, services and infrastructures that are located within the
predicted zone of influence.
The purpose of the report is to predict incremental damage due to construction works related to the
Dubai Metro Project.
2.4 TBM Face Pressure Calculations

The last document in this sequence is presenting the Bored Tunnel Face Pressure Calculations.
During TBM driving maintaining the required face pressures is required in order to ensure that the
volume loss scenarios, which have been the basis of assessments presented in the previous
documents, are not exceeded and face stability is maintained within the desired limit.

Rev : B2
Page 6 of 18
3 ALIGNMENT
The bored tunnel section will be constructed by two EPB TBMs launched in opposite directions from
separate launching shafts at either end of Union Square Station.
Tunnel Drive 1 – Southern Drive:
This tunnel drive extends from approximate chainage km01+540 at Union Square Station to Burjuman
Station at approximately chainage km00+060 (driven against decreasing chainage).
After launching from the Western end of Union Square Station, the TBM will gain depth and turn into a
curve in order to pass underneath the Dubai Municipality Traffic Control building and follow on a straight
alignment between the Hotel Intercontinental and the Dubai Municipality main building before reaching
the Dubai Creek about 370m after launching. The TBM will pass under the Dubai Creek with a clear
cover of approximately 9m and, on the other side, pass Annex 1 structure before arriving at the
permanent diaphragm walls of Burjuman Station.
Tunnel Drive 2 – Northern Drive:
This tunnel drive extends from approximate chainage km01+770 at Union Square Station to
approximate km04+000 at City Centre Station (drive with increasing chainage).
After launching from the Eastern end of Union Square Station, the TBM will turn slightly into Al Rigga
Street and passing Annex 2 structure before arrival at Al Rigga Station, about 950m after the launch.
The TBM will cut through the permanent diaphragm wall of Al Rigga Station, be moved through the
station and re-launched at the other station end wall in order to continue underneath the centre divider
of Al Rigga Street. After passing Annex 3 structure it will pass underneath a number of existing buildings
before reaching the large structure of the Dnata Emirates Airline building. After Annex 3 the alignment
gains depth in order to get maximum clearance to the piled foundation of the Dnata Emirates Airline
building, which will be underpassed at about chainage km03+600. About 400m later the TBM will arrive
at the permanent diaphragm wall of City Centre Station.
Site location and geological conditions are discussed in section below and presented in Appendix 1.
Also refer to Ref. [3] for detailed geotechnical profiles.

Rev : B2
Page 7 of 18
4 GEOTECHNICAL
4.1 Geotechnical Conditions

Ground conditions and geotechnical parameters used in calculations are based on geological
investigation and interpretation presented in geotechnical interpretative reports covering the entire
tunnel alignment. Refer to Ref. [1] to [6].
Geotechnical longitudinal sections showing soil profile used for face pressure analyses presented in this
document are summarized in Appendix 1.
Geotechnical parameters are discussed in Section 4.2 below.

Based on soil investigation results, geotechnical conditions along the bored tunnel alignment can be
broadly classified in five major ground materials:
Table 4.1 Geotechnical Units
Unit 1 Marine deposits Medium dense to very dense, light brown to light grey,
fine to medium grained SAND with variable carbonate
cementation and shells.
Unit 2a(i) Carbonate Sand Dense to very dense, light brown to light grey, fine to
medium grained carbonate SAND with variable
carbonate cementation and some calcareous
sandstone bands.
Unit 2a(ii) Calcareous Sandstone Light brown and light grey, slightly to moderately
Siliceous Calcarenite weathered, very weak to weak, siliceous
CALCARENITE/ calcareous SANDSTONE with layers
of variably cemented carbonate sand.
Unit 2b Gypsiferous Sandstone Red-brown, slightly to moderately weathered, very
weak to weak, gypsiferous SANDSTONE with layers of
variably cemented carbonate sand.
Unit 3 Siltstone / Calcisiltite Light grey, slightly to moderately weathered, very weak
to weak, CALCISILTITE/ SILTSTONE with some
layers of cemented carbonate silt.
Ground water table level varies slightly but is typically about 2m below the ground surface at level
RL +/- 0.0mDMD.
Geotechnical parameters of these soil/rock types are summarized and presented in Appendix 2, and are
described more in detail further below.
4.1.1 Tunnel Drive 1 – Southern Drive:

Ground conditions in this tunnel section predominantly consist of layered soils with Marine Sands (Unit
1) on the top with followed by Calcareous Sandstone / Siliceous Calcarenite (Unit 2a(ii)) and
Gypsiferous Sandstone (Unit 2b) below and Siltstone / Calcisiltite (Unit 3) at the bottom further below.

Rev : B2
Page 8 of 18
The Marine sands are typically 10 to 15m deep but between the Intercontinental Hotel and the Creek
may extend to more than 20m depth.
Unit 1 is expected to reach down to levels below tunnel crown level for the first almost 300m. At a
around chainage km00+500 Unit 1 is expected to extend down to tunnel level as well.
Nevertheless, over most of the length in this section, the tunnel will be excavated within Unit 2a(ii).
Between approximate chainages km00+800 and km01+200, the tunnel will be excavated below the
Dubai Creek where Unit 1 is expected to extend below the river bed and Unit 2a(ii) is expected to
provide a cover above the tunnel crown of 4 to 6m.
In this tunnel section, Gypsiferous Sandstone (Unit 2b) and Siltstone / Calcisiltite (Unit 3) are situated
further below the tunnel invert and are not expected to affect tunnel operation.
4.1.2 Tunnel Drive 2 – Northern Drive

Ground conditions in this tunnel section predominantly consist of layered soils with Marine Sands
(Unit 1) on the top with a layer of Carbonate Sands below (Unit 2a(i)). The latter is not expected to be
present in the other tunnel section. Further below lays again a layer of Calcareous Sandstone and
Siliceous Calcarenite (Unit 2a(i)) followed by Gypsiferous Sandstone (Unit 2b) and Siltstone / Calcisiltite
(Unit 3) at the bottom.
In this tunnel section, Gypsiferous Sandstone (Unit 2b) is expected to occur just in the lower section of
the face along two stretches, first at around chainage km02+200 until Annex 2 and second in the
deepest section from about chainage km03+300 until km03+900.
Siltstone / Calcisiltite (Unit 3) is situated further below the tunnel invert and not expected to affect tunnel
operation.
In this tunnel section, Marine Sands (Unit 1) material is not expected to be encountered within the
excavation face. Unit 2a(i), however, is expected to occur within the upper face section at several
locations and for the last approximately 150m before City Centre Station.
4.2 Design Parameters

Please note that face pressure recommendations presented below are based on drained analysis, and
conditions in reality may be somewhere in between the drained and the undrained case. Therefore
recommendations are based on drained analysis. However, results from undrained analysis are
provided as cross check and for information.
Although the soil materials expected to be encountered during tunnelling are mostly sandy, undrained
parameters are useful for face pressure calculations owing to the transient loading condition during the
TBM advance. Since the TBM will advance relatively fast, building several segment rings per day, the
loading conditions at the actual current face location will be extremely short-term and possibly
undrained.
Since the GIR reports do not provide parameter values for undrained material strength, such
parameters have been specifically derived and are presented in Appendix 2.

Rev : B2
Page 9 of 18
Input parameters used for face stability analyses presented in this document are presented in
Appendix 2.
4.3 Factors of Safety

The overall factor of safety against face failure is chosen to be 1.2 due to the transient nature of the
loading conditions involved in the TBM advance.
Justification for this factor can be provided by referring to Figure 3-1 in the report “Bored tunnel -
Volume Loss Assessment”, Ref.[7].
It shall be noted that the Contract Specification is stipulating that ground surface settlements shall be
less than 30mm. As verified in Ref.[8], ground settlements resulting from a volume loss value of 0.5%
are expected to be less than 30mm for the entire bored tunnel alignment. Taking the face pressures at
0.5% volume loss as reference value, it can be found from the diagram presented in Figure 4-1 below
that by increasing the face pressures by 20%, the volume loss will reduce by 50%. Therefore, using a
safety factor of 1.2 is considered adequate for the short term loading scenario related to the face
stability during TBM advance. Please refer to Figure 4-1 below which is based on Figure 3-1 in the
Ref.[7].
Bored Tunnel - Face Pressure vs Volume Loss (Plaxis)

2.0%
1.5%
Volume Loss
1.0% Factor 1.2

Factor 1.2
0.5%
0.0%
160.0 180.0 200.0 220.0 240.0 260.0 280.0 300.0
Total Face Pressure [kPa]
Plaxis--KP1+500 Plaxis--KP0+200 Plaxis--KP0+200(MF)
Factor 1.2 indicates that the volume loss reduces from 0.5% to half when face pressures are increased by this factor
Figure 4-1 Justification of Safety Margins (Based on Figure 3-1 in Ref.[7])
Compressed air pressures recommended for cutter head interventions in flowing conditions are derived
from ground water pressures considering a factor of safety of 1.10.
With respect to the soil strength partial factors for material strength are considered as per table in
Appendix 2.

Rev : B2
Page 10 of 18
5 CALCULATIONS
5.1 Approach for Face Stability
5.1.1 Drained case

The calculation approach is based on face stability in EPB and slurry shield tunnelling after G.
Anagnostou and K. Kovari, Ref.[10]. This approach has previously been applied successfully to the
TBM tunnel drives for other projects involving EPB TBMs in Singapore and Taiwan. Detailed information
on such previous projects has been submitted to the Engineer in separate correspondence.
The calculation approach investigates stability of the tunnel face considering limit equilibrium of a sliding
wedge at the face loaded by a prismatic body under effective stress (drained) condition.
Input parameters used in calculation are summarized in Appendix 2 and calculation results are
presented in Appendix 3.
The following design considerations can be mentioned in particular:
1. The ground conditions at tunnel level and above are taken from the geotechnical interpretive report
and the geotechnical soil profiles.
2. Surcharge at the ground surface are considered based on actual conditions at the location of the
analysis section.
3. Stratification and mixed face conditions are considered

4. When deriving the effective stress face support pressure, seepage pressures are considered as
additional loading. Also refer to Ref.[10]. In order to derive conservative levels of seepage
pressures, pore water depressurisation at the face is considered. Based on a tentative approach in
order to include conservatism, pore water depressurization over 50% of the overburden is
considered in the analyses.
5.1.2 Undrained case

All analyses related to calculation of TBM face pressures are based on drained case. Undraiend
analysis of face pressures is not considered in this project.
5.2 Approach for Tail Void Grouting Pressure

Recommended tail void grouting pressure range is derived based on the assessment of expected radial
deformations of the line of excavation under certain internal pressure conditions within the tunnel
opening (=tail void grouting pressure). Therefore, recommendation for tail void grouting pressure is
actually not derived from stability analysis used for the face pressure calculations, but from
stress/deformation analysis around a circular opening in the ground, subjected to internal pressure.
The approach uses standard text book formulation of stress and deformation around a circular opening
with internal pressure and is therefore not explained in detail here (for example refer to Refs. [11], [12],
[13] or [14]).

Rev : B2
Page 11 of 18

1. Values for tail void grouting pressures provided can be considered minimum recommended values.
2. The values are derived to limit the deflection of the excavation line to a movement corresponding to
the volume loss values not greater than those used in settlement analyses and construction impact
assessment.
3. The actual tail void grouting values to be used during construction shall be specified in the TBM
Tunnelling Method Statement.
4. The maximum tail void grouting pressure is eventually limited by the design tail void grouting
pressure used in the structural design of the segmental lining.
5.3 Approach for Compressed Air Support

Recommended compressed air pressure is correlated to the ground water pressure at the respective
location. In order to minimise air losses (blow-out) at the tunnel crown the factor of safety should be only
between 1.0 and 1.2.
1. Compressed air pressures are derived to equalise expected pore water pressures for the case
where cutter head intervention is required in unstable ground due to groundwater inflow.
2. The minimum recommended air pressures are orientated on the water pressure at tunnel axis level.
3. Factors of safety shall be used only moderately and cautiously as too high air pressures (air
pressure at crown significantly higher than water pressure) will have the negative effect of blow-outs
at the tunnel crown. Factor of 1.10 is used.
5.4 Calculation Sections

A total of 27 analysis sections covering both TBM drives have been calculated. Selection of sections for
calculations is based on variations of overburden, geology at tunnel face and particular cases of
topography along the alignment.
If the geotechnical ground model at the location of the analysis section shows a material change within
3m above the tunnel crown, the upper material is assumed to extend down into the tunnel face.
This is a conservative approach to address potential variations in the prediction levels of various soil
layers.

Rev : B2
Page 12 of 18
Design consideration related to the analysis sections are summarized in Table 5.1below:
Table 5.1 Analysis Sections
Sequ. Nr. Chainage Remarks
1 00+120 Shallow cover before arrival at Burjuman Station, Unit

1 assumed to extend down into the tunnel crown
2 00+540 Located at Unit 1 low point, Unit 1 assumed to extend

into tunnel crown
3 00+760 Located at alignment low point at Annex 1
4 00+820 Regular section just before Creek crossing
5 00+880 Section under the Creek with minimum overburden,

ground water pressure head at RL 0.0 DMD
6 01+000 Section under the Creek, ground water pressure head

at RL 0.0 DMD
7 01+180 Regular section just after Creek crossing, cover of Unit

2a(ii) above crown decreasing
8 01+260 Unit 2a(ii) appears in the tunnel crown
9 01+340 Shallower cover, Unit 2a(ii) reaches down to tunnel

axis
10 01+420 Shallower cover, Unit 2a(ii) reaches down to tunnel

invert
11 01+540 Still in shallow cover after launching from Union

Square Station West, Unit 1 assumed to extend down
to tunnel invert
12 Not Used Union Square Station
13 01+810 Still in shallow cover after launching from Union Station

East, Unit 1 assumed to extend into tunnel crown
14 01+930 Unit 2a(i) assumed to extend into tunnel crown
15 02+070 Tunnel gaining depth
16 02+250 Low point for Unit 2a(i) which is reaching down to

tunnel level, Unit 2 b appears in the tunnel invert
17 02+350 Tunnel at low point at Annex 2, Unit 2b in the invert
18 02+510 Tunnel level going up, but still large cover of Unit 2a(ii)
above crown
19 02+710 Section just before arrival at Al Rigga Station
20 Not Used Al Rigga Station

Rev : B2
Page 13 of 18
Table 5.1 Analysis Sections
Sequ. Nr. Chainage Remarks
21 02+860 After launching from Al Rigga Station
22 03+060 Tunnel gaining depth
23 03+380 Low point in Unit 2a(i), down to tunnel crown
24 03+400 Unit 2b appearing at tunnel invert
25 03+520 Unit 2b in tunnel invert
26 03+600 Alignment low point at Dnata Emirates Airline Building
27 03+640 Section after Dnata Emirates Airline Building
28 03+880 Unit 2a(i) appears in tunnel crown
29 04+000 Section just before arrival at City Centre Station with

Unit 2a(i) in the tunnel crown
5.5 Analysis of Face Support Pressures

The results of the analysis are providing the following results:
1. TBM face support pressure required to maintain stable face conditions at the cutter head
2. Compressed air support pressure for control of groundwater inflow during cutter head interventions
in unstable ground conditions with groundwater inflows (for example during maintenance and
changing of cutting tools).
3. Tail void grouting pressure range in order to maintain the anticipated volume loss values.
Face pressures are derived from face stability analyses carried out based on the approach presented in
Ref.[10] (drained condition) and Ref.[11] (undrained condition). Both drained and undrained behaviour
of relevant soil materials are examined. However, undrained results are suppressed if Unit 1 is present
in the tunnel crown as the high permeability of this soil material will make undrained behaviour unlikely.
If undrained conditions are considered relevant, the required minimum face pressure is taken as the
maximum of the actual face pressure calculated and of a minimum nominal value of 120kPa.
Owing to the temporary and transient character of loading conditions involved during the TBM advance,
a Factor of Safety of 1.2 is used in the face stability analyses.
The imposed loads on the sliding wedge at tunnel level comprise of a general surface surcharge of
20 kPa and gravity as well as water pressure loading of soil above the tunnel. For the analysis section
at the Dnata building a total surcharge of 90kPa was considered (building load).
Both, effective as well as total required support pressures are presented in the calculation results.
Ground water seepage pressures acting on the failure wedge are considered in the analyses. As a

Rev : B2
Page 14 of 18
conservative approach 50% depressurization at the face is allowed in order to derive seepage forces
acting on the failure wedge in the face.
As a conservative approach ground treatment areas for example at TBM launching, TBM arrival and at
Annex structures are not considered in face pressure calculations.

Rev : B2
Page 15 of 18
6 CONCLUSIONS
6.1 General
Based on existing ground conditions at tunnel level required face pressure are calculated and presented
in Appendix 3 respectively.
The face pressures are derived based on the geotechnical ground model presented in Appendix 1.
Variation in the layering structure of the soil strata at tunnel level or the extent of soft soil depressions
may result in variations with respect to the proposed chainage for which a specific face pressure is
required. Dealing with such possible variations and the identification of actual ground conditions during
TBM tunnelling shall be addressed in the TBM Tunnelling Method Statement.
Recommended pressure values are based on drained soil behaviour.
However, assessment based on undrained behaviour has been provided for verification purposes and
special case considerations during construction, for which undrained behaviour can be considered
reasonable. Undrained behaviour can be justified if the soil’s permeability is less than k=10-6 m/s
together with excavation scenarios where the TBM advances at least 5 rings per day.
The influence of slower excavation rates or stoppages shall be judged based on actual settlement
behaviour and face pressures should be adjusted accordingly.
6.2 TBM Operation

Operation in “Closed Mode” refers to the operation scenario where the earth pressure chamber is fully
filled and pressurised such that the recommended values provided in Appendix 2 are maintained at
tunnel axis level.
Operation in “Open Mode” refers to an operation scenario where the face pressure does not need to be
maintained at a certain value in a controlled manner. Nevertheless in this operation mode, the earth
pressure chamber is fully filled. This mode of operation does not apply and will not be used on this
project.
The recommended face pressures in proposed Appendix 3 are based on the understanding that during
TBM driving, the following strategy should be adopted in principle:
• Face pressures shall be reviewed continuously during TBM driving and updated accordingly.
During these reviews, adequacy of the additives into the earth pressure chamber, such as foam
and polymer shall be judged as well.
• Procedures shall be implemented with respect to emergency scenarios of excessive settlement or
face instability during TBM driving.
• If ground settlements are excessive despite applied face pressures as provided in the respective
tables in Appendix 3, it is recommended to increase face pressures beyond the recommended
values. In this case, amendments to advance rate or soil conditioning may need to be considered
in order to manage consequential increases in cutter head torque and/ or thrust force.
• Compressed air pressures recommended for cutter head interventions apply to conditions where
the face is unstable or ground water inflow has to be controlled. The recommended air pressure

Rev : B2
Page 16 of 18
values are orientated on the maximum ground water pressure at tunnel axis level. If, during
practical application, unacceptable air losses at the tunnel crown occur, the intervention shall be
abandoned and earth pressure chamber fully pressurised immediately. As a first step the TBM
shall be advanced a short distance with injection of bentonite or other appropriate materials should
in order to create a sealing plug (bentonite cake) in front of the TBM face before carrying out
another intervention. Further pressure adjustments and measures will depend on actual conditions.
• Cutter head interventions at locations where the tunnel face is in, or the tunnel crown in close
vicinity to, Unit 1 or Unit 2a(i) should be avoided. However, if such intervention within these soil
units is unavoidable, it is recommended that compressed air pressures shall be adopted very
carefully and constantly reviewed using an observational approach considering the recorded
amount of air loss. Owing to the high permeability (10-5 m/s or more) in these layers, there is a
potentially high risk of significant air losses and rapid air bubble rise to the groundwater table.
• Before underpassing the Dnata building an additional face pressure review shall be carried out. At
this stage it is envisaged that the face pressure adopted underneath the Dnata building would be at
least 350kPa or more.
• When in “Closed Mode” operation it is to have procedures in place which would ensure that the
TBM operators will not drop the target face pressures below the water pressures calculated at
tunnel axis line level.
6.3 Check of surface settlements

Based on the proposed TBM face pressure ranges presented in Appendix 3 and data presented Figure
4-1 surface settlements corresponding to a volume loss of 0.4% can be expected. Refer to page 6
within Appendix 3.
This is acceptable as the maximum expected settlement value corresponding to this volume loss is
about 25mm, which is about 80% of the allowable value of 30mm.

Rev : B2
Page 17 of 18
7 REFERENCES
For the preparation of this document the following data sources were used:
[1] DURL / Atkins Document, Dubai Metro Project, Tunnel Section Burjuman Station to Union Square
Station - Geotechnical Interpretative Report, Doc. No. DM001-E-ACW-DRR-DR-DCC-375102
[2] DURL / Atkins Document, Dubai Metro Project, Tunnel Section Union Square Station to Al Rigga
[3] DURL / Atkins Document, Dubai Metro Project, Tunnel Section Al Rigga Station to City Centre
[4] DURL / Atkins / Geoconsult Drawings: Red Line – Bored Tunnel, Burjuman Station to Union
Square Station and City Centre Station, Geotechnical: DWG. No. DM001-E-S07-CSU-SK-DCC-
339011 to 339015.
[5] DURL / Atkins / Geoconsult Drawings: Red Line North – Bored Tunnel, Burjuman Station to City
Centre Station, Ring Reinforcement Types & TBM Operation Parameters – 5 Sheets, DWG. No.
DM001-E-ACW-CBT-DD-DCC-339131 to 33913
[6] DURL / Atkins / Geoconsult Document, Dubai Metro Project – Red Line, Bored Tunnel –
Geotechnical Parameters, Doc. No. DM001-E-ACW-DDR-DR-DCC-339913
[7] DURL / Atkins / Geoconsult Drawings: Red Line – Bored Tunnel Volume Loss Assessment, Doc.
No. DM001-E-ACW-DDR-DR-DCC-339940
[8] DURL / Atkins / Geoconsult Drawings: Red Line – Analysis of Ground Movement due to
Construction of Bored Tunnel, Doc. No. DM001-E-ACW-DDR-DR-DCC-339941
[9] DURL / Atkins / Geoconsult Drawings: Red Line – Construction Impact Assessment due to Bored
Tunnelling Doc. No. DM001-E-ACW-DDR-DR-DCC-339902
[10] G. Anagostou, K. Kovari: “Face Stability in Slurry and EPB Shield Tunnelling”; Tunnels &
Tunnelling; December 1996, Refer to Appendix 4.
[11] Davis E.H., Gunn M.J., Mair R.J., Senevirantes H.N.: “The stability of shallow tunnels and
underground openings in cohesive material”; Geotechnique 30 (1980), No. 4, 397-416
[12] Timoshenko, S.P.; History of strength of materials; McGraw-Hill, London 1953.
[13] Florence A.L., Schwer L.E.; Axisymmetric compression of Mohr-Coulomb medium around a
circular hole, Int.J.Num.Anal.Meth.Geomech, Vol 2, pp 367-379, 1978.
[14] Hoek E., Brown E.T.; Underground excavations in rock; p 249 ff.

Rev : B2
Page 18 of 18
APPENDIX 1
GROUND MODEL PLANS
Geotechnical Profiles

Rev B2
APPENDIX 2
GEOTECHNCIAL INPUT PARAMETERS
Design Input Parameters

Rev B2
Geoconsult Asia Singapore
Dubai Metro Project:

INPUT PARAMETERS - TUNNEL GEOMETRY AND GROUND PROPERTIES
Tunnel Geometry
TBM diameter D [m] 9.96

Length of TBM cutter head P [m] 1.20
Surcharge q [kPa] 20.00
Overall factor of safety FS tot [-] 1.20 (applied to driving forces in force equilibrium)
Air pressure FOS FS air [-] 1.10 (in order to avoid air blow-out, value shall be smaller than 1.20)
Soil material strength factor γ cu [-] 1.50
γφ [-] 1.50
Pore press. diff. crown -> centre Du [kPa] 49.80
Design Parameters 11 12 2 13 10 6
Soil / Rock Type c' φ' γ Cu K'o,min E'
[kPa] [deg] [kN/m3] [kPa] [-] [MPa]
Unit 1 0 33 18 0 0.46 25
Unit 2a(i) 5 35 20 0 0.43 55
Unit 2a(ii) 26 31 20 125 0.48 80
Unit 2b 55 35 20 175 0.43 100
Unit 3 37 28 21 250 0.53 65
DM_TBM-face-pressures_A1-2.xls Input
APPENDIX 3
ANALYSIS RESULTS – TBM OPERATION PARAMETERS
Summary Table
Air Pressure and Tail Void Grouting – Summary Table and diagram
Face Pressures – Summary Table and diagram
Expected Volume Loss
Calculation Sheet for each Analysis Section

Rev B2
Geoconsult Asia Singapore Page 1

Summary of Recommended Values
Face Pressures (total stres: σ'+u) Air Pressure Tail Void Grout Expected
Pressure Settlement
No. Chainage Reference Geological Unit at RECOMMENDED EMERGENCY RECOMMENDED RECOMMENDED b
above
Borehole Tunnel Face (drained soil (Control of min. air pressure for for control of volume tunnel centre
behaviour) Groundwater inflow cutter head intervention loss
condition)
NOTE 1) NOTE 2) NOTE 3) NOTE 4) NOTE 5)
From To [kPa] [kPa] [kPa] [kPa] [mm]
1 Burjuman 00+120 Unit 1 Unit 2a(ii) 230 280 199 255 - 500 17
2 00+120 00+540 Unit 1 Unit 2a(ii) 291 340 247 313 - 500 17
3 00+540 00+760 Unit 2a(ii) Unit 2a(ii) 296 346 263 355 - 500 15
4 00+760 00+820 Unit 2a(ii) Unit 2a(ii) 289 339 257 345 - 500 15
5 00+820 00+880 Unit 2a(ii) Unit 2a(ii) 253 302 254 309 - 500 15
6 00+880 01+000 Unit 2a(ii) Unit 2a(ii) 247 297 246 300 - 500 14
7 01+000 01+180 Unit 2a(ii) Unit 2a(ii) 253 302 228 285 - 500 19
8 01+180 01+260 Unit 1 Unit 2a(ii) 238 288 205 260 - 500 19
9 01+260 01+340 Unit 1 Unit 1 225 274 182 255 - 500 20
10 01+340 01+420 Unit 1 Unit 1 194 244 159 228 - 500 21
11 01+420 01+540 Unit 1 Unit 1 173 223 144 208 - 500 22
12 01+540 Launch Unit 1 Unit 1 173 223 144 208 - 500 25
13 Launch 01+810 Unit 1 Unit 2a(i) 172 222 147 202 - 500 24
14 01+810 01+930 Unit 2a(i) Unit 2a(ii) 182 232 164 219 - 500 24
15 01+930 02+070 Unit 2a(ii) Unit 2a(ii) 216 266 197 252 - 500 25
16 02+070 02+250 Unit 2a(i) Unit 2a(ii) 299 349 251 335 - 500 21
17 02+250 02+350 Unit 2a(ii) Unit 2a(ii) 287 337 252 335 - 500 16
18 02+350 02+510 Unit 2a(ii) Unit 2a(ii) 254 304 225 293 - 500 16
19 02+510 02+710 Unit 2a(ii) Unit 2a(ii) 204 254 187 245 - 500 17
20 02+710 Al Rigga Unit 2a(ii) Unit 2a(ii) 204 254 187 245 - 500 17
21 Al Rigga 02+860 Unit 2a(ii) Unit 2a(ii) 202 251 185 243 - 500 17
22 02+860 03+060 Unit 2a(ii) Unit 2a(ii) 205 255 211 283 - 500 17
23 03+060 03+180 Unit 2a(i) Unit 2a(ii) 236 286 227 288 - 500 17
24 03+180 03+400 Unit 2a(ii) Unit 2a(ii) 291 341 258 350 - 500 17
25 03+400 03+520 Unit 2a(ii) Unit 2a(ii) 313 363 275 375 - 500 16
26 03+520 03+600 Unit 2a(ii) Unit 2a(ii) 360 410 283 483 - 500 15
27 03+600 03+640 Unit 2a(ii) Unit 2a(ii) 313 362 281 405 - 500 12
28 03+640 03+880 Unit 2a(i) Unit 2a(ii) 224 274 219 273 - 500 18
29 03+880 04+000 Unit 2a(i) Unit 2a(ii) 228 278 201 255 - 500 18
30 04+000 City Center Unit 2a(i) Unit 2a(ii) 228 278 201 255 - 500 17
W:\wo0_job\45\17-Dubai Metro\TECH-DOC\Calcs\TBM face press\Rev.B2\[DM_TBM-face-pressures_B1-2.xls]VolumeLoss
NOTES: 1) Recommended minimum pressures for TBM operation in normal conditions.
2) Emergency face pressures to displace groundwater at the face in order to control inflows through the screw conveyor etc.
Value is orientated on groundwater pressure at invert level and required effective pressure for face stability
3) Applies to cutter head intervention in unstable and/or flowing conditions
4) Recommended tail void pressure range. Actual minimum pressure is defined by method statement.
Actual maximum pressure is defined by segmental lining design.
5) Derived based on volume loss values which are corresponding to the proposed face pressures (=0.4%)
DM_TBM-face-pressures_B1-2.xls Summary

Summary of Calculation Results: FACE PRESSURES
TBM Face Pressure Hydrostatic Mean between

Water drained and
Drained condition Octaeder pressure at full water
stress Springline pressure
No. Chainage Geological Units eff.press. total press. total stress
σ' dr-eff σ dr-tot σ o-tot u 1/2(σ dr-tot + u)
From To CROWN AXIS INVERT [kPa] [kPa] [kPa] [kPa] [kPa]
1 Burjuman 00+120 Unit 1 Unit 2a(ii) Unit 2a(ii) 98 230 379 181 206
2 00+120 00+540 Unit 1 Unit 2a(ii) Unit 2a(ii) 116 291 438 225 258
3 00+540 00+760 Unit 2a(ii) Unit 2a(ii) Unit 2a(ii) 107 296 449 239 268
8 01+180 01+260 Unit 1 Unit 2a(ii) Unit 2a(ii) 101 238 349 187 212
9 01+260 01+340 Unit 1 Unit 1 Unit 2a(ii) 109 225 285 165 195
12 01+540 Launch Unit 1 Unit 1 Unit 2a(ii) 92 173 242 131 152
13 Launch 01+810 Unit 1 Unit 2a(i) Unit 2a(ii) 89 172 259 133 153
14 01+810 01+930 Unit 2a(i) Unit 2a(ii) Unit 2a(ii) 83 182 286 149 165
20 02+710 Al Rigga Unit 2a(ii) Unit 2a(ii) Unit 2a(ii) 84 204 347 170 187
21 Al Rigga 02+860 Unit 2a(ii) Unit 2a(ii) Unit 2a(ii) 83 202 344 168 185
22 02+860 03+060 Unit 2a(ii) Unit 2a(ii) Unit 2b 63 205 391 192 199
23 03+060 03+180 Unit 2a(i) Unit 2a(ii) Unit 2b 80 236 395 206 221
27 03+600 03+640 Unit 2a(ii) Unit 2a(ii) Unit 2b 107 313 525 255 284
28 03+640 03+880 Unit 2a(i) Unit 2a(ii) Unit 2b 75 224 369 199 211
30 04+000 City Center Unit 2a(i) Unit 2a(ii) Unit 2a(ii) 95 228 342 182 205
W:\wo0_job\45\17-Dubai Metro\TECH-DOC\Calcs\TBM face press\Rev.B2\[DM_TBM-face-pressures_B1-2.xls]VolumeLoss = 1/3*(σv + 2*σh)
DM_TBM-face-pressures_B1-2.xls Face-press SUM

BORED MINIMUM FACE Water press. at

TUNNEL PRESSURE (kPa) springline FACE SUPPORT PRESSURES
500
DRAINED - total
CHAINAGE [kPa]
stress
450
1 00+120 230 181
2 00+540 291 225
3 00+760 296 239 400
4 00+820 289 234
FACE SUPPORT PRESSURE (kPa)

5 00+880 253 231 350
6 01+000 247 223
7 01+180 253 207
300
8 01+260 238 187
9 01+340 225 165
10 01+420 194 145 250
11 01+540 173 131
12 200
13 01+810 172 133
14 01+930 182 149
150
15 02+070 216 179
16 02+250 299 228
17 02+350 287 229 100
18 02+510 254 205
19 02+710 204 170 50
20
21 02+860 202 168
0
22 03+060 205 192
00+0 00+500 01+000 01+500 02+000 02+500 03+000 03+500 04+000 04+500
23 03+180 236 206 CHAINAGE
24 03+400 291 234
25 03+520 313 250 DRAINED - total stress Water press. at springline
26 03+600 360 257
27 03+640 313 255
28 03+880 224 199
29 04+000 228 182
30
DM_TBM-face-pressures_B1-1.xls PLOT-FP

Summary of Calculation Results: TUNNEL DEFORMATIONS AND TAIL VOID PRESSURES
Tail Void Pressure Air Pressure

Chainage Maximum = Total Minimum = to Min. recommended for
No. Geological Units vertical octaeder control volume loss cutter head intervention in
stress and deformations flowing GW condition
σv ptv ua
From To CROWN AXIS [kPa] [kPa] [kPa]
1 Burjuman 00+120 Unit 1 Unit 2a(ii) 379 255 199
2 00+120 00+540 Unit 1 Unit 2a(ii) 438 313 247
3 00+540 00+760 Unit 2a(ii) Unit 2a(ii) 449 355 263
4 00+760 00+820 Unit 2a(ii) Unit 2a(ii) 440 345 257
5 00+820 00+880 Unit 2a(ii) Unit 2a(ii) 298 309 254
6 00+880 01+000 Unit 2a(ii) Unit 2a(ii) 303 300 246
7 01+000 01+180 Unit 2a(ii) Unit 2a(ii) 382 285 228
8 01+180 01+260 Unit 1 Unit 2a(ii) 349 260 205
9 01+260 01+340 Unit 1 Unit 1 285 255 182
10 01+340 01+420 Unit 1 Unit 1 260 228 159
11 01+420 01+540 Unit 1 Unit 1 242 208 144
12 01+540 Launch Unit 1 Unit 1 242 208 144
13 Launch 01+810 Unit 1 Unit 2a(i) 259 202 147
14 01+810 01+930 Unit 2a(i) Unit 2a(ii) 286 219 164
15 01+930 02+070 Unit 2a(ii) Unit 2a(ii) 350 252 197
16 02+070 02+250 Unit 2a(i) Unit 2a(ii) 430 335 251
17 02+250 02+350 Unit 2a(ii) Unit 2a(ii) 432 335 252
18 02+350 02+510 Unit 2a(ii) Unit 2a(ii) 392 293 225
19 02+510 02+710 Unit 2a(ii) Unit 2a(ii) 347 245 187
20 02+710 Al Rigga Unit 2a(ii) Unit 2a(ii) 347 245 187
21 Al Rigga 02+860 Unit 2a(ii) Unit 2a(ii) 344 243 185
22 02+860 03+060 Unit 2a(ii) Unit 2a(ii) 391 283 211
23 03+060 03+180 Unit 2a(i) Unit 2a(ii) 395 288 227
24 03+180 03+400 Unit 2a(ii) Unit 2a(ii) 447 350 258
25 03+400 03+520 Unit 2a(ii) Unit 2a(ii) 470 375 275
26 03+520 03+600 Unit 2a(ii) Unit 2a(ii) 487 483 283
27 03+600 03+640 Unit 2a(ii) Unit 2a(ii) 525 405 281
28 03+640 03+880 Unit 2a(i) Unit 2a(ii) 369 273 219
29 03+880 04+000 Unit 2a(i) Unit 2a(ii) 342 255 201
30 04+000 City Center Unit 2a(i) Unit 2a(ii) 342 255 201
= 1/3*(σv + 2*σh)
W:\wo0_job\45\17-Dubai Metro\TECH-DOC\Calcs\TBM face press\Rev.B2\[DM_TBM-face-pressures_B1-2.xls]VolumeLoss
DM_TBM-face-pressures_B1-2.xls Tail-void SUM

Bored Water press. at Water press. At Minimum tail

Air pressure COMPRESSED AIR SUPPORT PRESSURES
Tunnel springline invert void press.
500
CHAINAGE [kPa] [kPa] [kPa] [kPa]
450
1 00+120 199 181 231 255
2 00+540 247 225 275 313
3 00+760 263 239 289 355 400
4 00+820 257 234 284 345
5 00+880 254 231 281 309
350
6 01+000 246 223 273 300
7 01+180 228 207 257 285
300
PRESSURE [kPa]
8 01+260 205 187 237 260
9 01+340 182 165 215 255
10 01+420 159 145 195 228 250
11 01+540 144 131 181 208
12
200
13 01+810 147 133 183 202
14 01+930 164 149 199 219
15 02+070 197 179 229 252 150
16 02+250 251 228 278 335
17 02+350 252 229 279 335
100
18 02+510 225 205 254 293
19 02+710 187 170 220 245
20
50
21 02+860 185 168 218 243
22 03+060 211 192 242 283 0
23 03+180 227 206 256 288 00+0 00+500 01+000 01+500 02+000 02+500 03+000 03+500 04+000 04+500
24 03+400 258 234 284 350 CHAINAGE
25 03+520 275 250 300 375
Water press. At invert Air pressure Water press. at springline Minimum tail void press.
26 03+600 283 257 307 483
27 03+640 281 255 305 405
28 03+880 219 199 248 273
29 04+000 201 182 232 255
30
DM_TBM-face-pressures_B1-1.xls PLOT-AP
Project Dubai Metro Project

Client: Atkins
Job Nr.: S 4517
Date: January 2007
File: W:\wo0_job\45\17-Dubai Metro\TECH-DOC\Calcs\TBM face press\Rev.B2\[DM_TBM-face-pressures_B1-2.xls]VolumeLoss
BORED TUNNELS: Total Face pressure versus Volume Loss Values

Based on PLAXIS model at km 00+200; using Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion2
total Volume loss

Bored Tunnel - Face Pressure vs Volume Loss (Plaxis)
pressure
[kPa] [%] 1.00%
300.0 0.10%
290.0 0.12% 0.80%
280.0 0.15%
270.0 0.18%
Volume Loss
0.60%
260.0 0.21%
250.0 0.25%
240.0 0.32% 0.40%
230.0 0.42%
220.0 0.59% 0.20%
215.0 0.73%
210.0 0.96% 0.00%
200 220 240 260 280 300
Total Face Pressure [kPa]
Pointers pf [kPa] VL1 [%]

0 0.38%
235 0.38%
235 -1.00%
DM_TBM-face-pressures_B1-2.xls VolumeLoss
Chainage 0 + 120
Input 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Surcharge q kPa 20.0 0.0 Average soil parameter upto tunnel centerline level
Tunnel diameter D m 9.960 Mark "x" Geot. depth depth c' φ' γ E N300 Cu c' xΔL φ' xΔL γ xΔL E xΔL N300 xΔL cu xΔL ΔL
Length of TBM cutter head P m 1.2 for tunnel Unit from to -- --
Groundwater below surface zw m 5.0 5.00 axis level m m kPa deg kN/m3 [MPa] [--] [m]
Overburden above crown C m 18.15 5 Unit 1 0.0 11.9 0 33 18 25 0 0 393 214 298 12 0 11.9
Geotechnical Unit at crown OK Unit 1 Unit 1 Unit 1 11.9 18.1 0 33 18 25 0 0 206 112 156 6 0 6.2
Geotechnical Unit at tunnel axis level Unit 2a(ii) 12 c Unit 1 18.1 21.5 0 33 18 25 0 0 110 60 83 3 0 3.3
Geotechnical Unit at invert Unit 2a(ii) x Unit 2a(ii) 21.5 24.8 26 31 20 80 125 86 103 66 266 3 415 3.3
Drained cohesion at face c' kPa 17.3 i Unit 2a(ii) 24.8 28.1 26 31 20 80 125 86 103 66 266 3 415 3.3
Drained friction angle at face φ' deg 31.7
Undrained cohesion at face Cu kPa 83.3
Allow undrained case ("yes" for allow) n
Factor of safety overall FStot - 1.2
Factors for material strength γcu - 1.5
γφ - 1.5 Average over overburden 6.1 32.5 18.5 38.0 29.5 172.6 914.2 519.2 1067.8 28.1 830.0 28.1
shear reduction factor (excess pwp) fφ - 0.71 Average over tunnel diameter 17.3 31.7 19.3 61.7 83.3 172.6 315.4 192.6 614.2 10.0 830.0 9.96
reduced friction angle (excess pwp) φ' deg 23.6
Avg overburden bulk unit weight γ kN/m3 18.47 SPT
Avg overburden bouyant unit weight γ' kN/m3 12.33 consider zw and q depth [m]
Ground stresses at tunnel centre line N300 not used not used
total vertical stress σv kPa 482.5 7
total horizontal stress σh kPa 327.3 12 Average SPT #DIV/0!
total octaeder stress σct kPa 379.1
pore pressure u kPa 181.3 8 In-situ stress at centre of each layer
effective vertical stress σ'v kPa 301.3 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
effective horizontal stress σ'h kPa 146.1 11 Geot. depth depth Δd γ σv u σ'v k'o, min σ'h σh
Tail Void Pressure to restrict Volume Loss 254 255 Unit from to centre 0.0 Water pressure at ground surface
minimum tail void grouting pressure ptv kPa 255 1.020 Plastic m m m kN/m3 kPa kPa kPa - kPa kPa
ratio plastic radius / tunnel radius re/R - 1.2 0 Unit 1 0.00 11.90 5.95 18.00 127.1 9.5 117.6 0.46 53.6 63.1
volume loss VL2 VL2 % 0.49 0 Unit 1 11.90 18.15 15.02 18.00 290.4 100.2 190.2 0.46 86.6 186.8
radial displacem. of soil in gap (cr/s) u mm 10.1 c Unit 1 18.15 21.47 19.81 18.00 376.5 148.1 228.4 0.46 104.0 252.1
Air pressure for cutter head maintance x Unit 2a(ii) 21.47 24.79 23.13 20.00 482.5 181.3 301.3 0.48 146.1 327.3
required air-pressure (u at centre) ua kPa 199 1.10 i Unit 2a(ii) 24.79 28.11 26.45 20.00 548.9 214.5 334.5 0.48 162.2 376.6
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 20.0 0.0 20.0 #N/A #N/A #N/A
Face pressure for stable face in undrained condition limit N 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 20.0 0.0 20.0 #N/A #N/A #N/A
Stability Number Tc - #N/A 6.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 20.0 0.0 20.0 #N/A #N/A #N/A
Calculated face pressure σTc kPa #N/A 7 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 20.0 0.0 20.0 #N/A #N/A #N/A
Applied face pressure σ_face kPa #N/A 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 20.0 0.0 20.0 #N/A #N/A #N/A
Driving Mode #N/A
Face pressure for stable face in drained condition Calculation of minimum Tail Void Pressure to restrict Volume Loss
water table above axis h0 m 18.1
E' Mpa 80.0 ν' 0.25 G' Mpa 32.0
porewater pressure diff. due to flow Δh m 9.1 Eu Mpa 106.7 νu 0.50 G MPa 35.6
check if h0 <H+D; yes=1, no=0 1 kp 3.21 b 0.90 overcut m 0.010 0.0 0% part only due to
relation H/D - 1.82 shield sitting in the invert
(h0-D)/D - 0.82 total vertical stress at crown σv kPa 228.4 9 c
Factors F0 - 0.41 Support Ratio α 0.32
F1 - 3.01 grouting pressure pi kPa 73.75
F2 - 0.60 φ' rad 0.41 c' kPa 11.56
F3 - 0.06 tunnel radius R m 4.980
Effective support pressure σ' kPa 98 plastic radius Re m 6.030 6.030 Plastic 1.00 tolerance for plastic state
98
displacements pv = pi - g' * (Re-R) 73.75 0
Total support pressure σTOT kPa 230 1.0 crown mm 51.01 mg = 1 / ν 4.00
consider pore side mm 2.43 10.12 average displacement
pressure at crown VL % 0.49 1.00 add closure along shield and increase if total
Vs m3 face support is less than required tail void pressure
DM_TBM-face-pressures_B1-1.xls
Data for chart F0

φ'[deg] 15.0 17.5 20.0 22.5 25.0 27.5 30.0 32.5 35.0
H/D=1 0.69 0.57 0.47 0.400 0.320 0.270 0.230 0.180 0.140
H/D=2 0.9 0.75 0.57 0.460 0.370 0.320 0.225 0.190 0.140
H/D>=5 1.05 0.83 0.62 0.500 0.330 0.310 0.230 0.190 0.140
φ'[deg] 23.60878
H/D 1.821787
H/D A B
0 2.2472 -0.0777 0
1 2.2472 -0.0777 1
2 3.6662 -0.0919 2
5 4.5988 -0.0996 5
10 4.5988 -0.0996 10
H/D 1 2
A 2.2472 3.6662
A-intpol 3.4132
B -0.0777 -0.0919
B-intpol -0.0894
F0 0.41
Data for chart F1
φ'[deg] 15.0 17.5 20.0 22.5 25.0 27.5 30.0 32.5

H/D=1 4.050 3.600 3.200 2.900 2.650 2.450 2.245 2.000
H/D=2 4.600 4.050 3.505 3.200 2.800 2.550 2.250 2.000
H/D>=5 5.100 4.300 3.700 3.250 2.800 2.550 2.250 2.000
φ'[deg] 23.60878
H/D 1.821787
H/D A1 B1
0 7.1094 -0.039 0
1 7.1094 -0.039 1
2 9.1732 -0.0469 2
5 10.816 -0.0527 5
10 10.816 -0.0527 10
H/D 1 2
A1 7.1094 9.1732
A1-intpol 8.8052
B1 -0.039 -0.0469
B1-intpol -0.0455
F1 3.01
Data for chart F2
φ'[deg] 15.0 17.5 20.0 22.5 25.0

(h0-D)/D = 0.5 0.76 0.72 0.682 0.65 0.62
(h0-D)/D = 1 0.72 0.68 0.64 0.6 0.57
(h0-D)/D = 3 0.66 0.61 0.57 0.54 0.51
φ'[deg] 23.60878
H/D or (h0-D)/D 0.8
H/D A3 B3
0 1.0338 -0.0206 0
0.5 1.0338 -0.0206 1
1.0 1.0004 -0.0223 1
3.0 0.9108 -0.0228 3
10.0 0.9108 -0.0228 10
H/D 1 3
A1 1.0004 0.9108
A1-intpol 1.0085
B1 -0.0223 -0.0228
B1-intpol -0.0223
F2 0.60
Data for chart F3
φ'[deg] 15.0 17.5 20.0 22.5 25.0 27.5 30.0 32.5 35

(h0-D)/D = 0.5 0.0170 0.0240 0.0350 0.0470 0.0610 0.0710 0.0820 0.0910 0.0990
(h0-D)/D = 1 0.0300 0.0390 0.0480 0.0600 0.0720 0.0810 0.0900 0.1000 0.1080
(h0-D)/D = 3 0.0480 0.0560 0.0670 0.0770 0.0880 0.0940 0.1020 0.1070 0.1120
φ'[deg] 23.60878
H/D or (h0-D)/D 0.82
H/D A3 B3 C3 D3
0 0.0043 -0.0493 -0.0091 0.0496 0
0.5 0.0043 -0.0493 -0.0091 0.0496 1
1.0 0.0040 -0.0302 -0.0019 0.0112 1
3.0 0.0033 0.0008 6.00E-05 0.0118 3
10.0 0.0033 0.0008 0.00006 0.0118 10
H/D 1 3
A3 0.004 0.0033
A3-intpol 0.00406
B3 -0.0302 0.0008
B3-intpol -0.0330
C3 -0.0019 0.00006
C3-intpol -0.0021
D3 0.0112 0.0118
D3-intpol 0.0111
F3 0.06
STABILITY NUMBER
UNDRAINED CONDITION
Tunnel Geometry
Depth to tunnel axis hr 23.13
Tunnel height ht 9.96 Ratio: hr / ht 2.32
Length of loading sq 1.20 Ratio: sq / ht 0.12
Table for Stability Number Tc

Column 1 2 3 4 5
Row sq / ht 0 0.5 1 2 1000
hr / ht
1 1 5.49 4.85 4.36 3.71 3.23
2 1.5 7.11 6.23 5.17 4.52 3.71
3 2 8.08 7.11 6.14 5.17 4.20
4 2.5 8.72 7.59 6.62 5.65 4.36
5 3 9.21 7.91 7.11 5.98 4.46
6 3.5 9.37 8.08 7.27 6.14 4.52
Interpolation
Column 1 2
Row sq / ht 0 0.12 0.5
hr / ht
3 2 2.00 3.93 8.08
2.32 4.28
4 2.5 2.50 4.47 8.72
Tc = 4.28
Chainage 0 + 540
Input 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Tail Void Pressure to restrict Volume Loss 302 313 Unit from to 0.0 Water pressure at ground surface
ratio plastic radius/tunnel radius re/R - 1.2 0 Unit 1 0.00 21.00 10.50 18.00 209.0 65.0 144.0 0.46 65.6 130.6
radial displacement of soil in gap u mm 10.2 c Unit 1 21.50 24.82 23.16 18.00 436.8 191.6 245.3 0.46 111.7 303.3
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 20.0 0.0 20.0 #N/A #N/A #N/A
Driving Mode #N/A
E' Mpa 80.0 ν' 0.25 G' Mpa 32.0
(h0-D)/D - 1.26 σv kPa 245.3 9 c
F2 - 0.62 φ' rad 0.37 c' kPa 11.56
116
face support is less than required tail void pressure
Chainage 0 + 760
Input 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Geotechnical Unit at crown OK Unit 2a(ii) Unit 2a(ii) Unit 2a(ii) 13.9 22.0 26 31 20 80 125 210 250 161 645 8 1008 8.1
Geotechnical Unit at tunnel axis level Unit 2a(ii) 12 c Unit 2a(ii) 22.0 25.3 26 31 20 80 125 86 103 66 266 3 415 3.3
volume loss VL2 VL2 % 0.49 0 Unit 2a(ii) 13.90 21.97 17.93 20.00 378.7 149.3 229.3 0.48 111.2 260.6
radial displacement of soil in gap u mm 10.6 c Unit 2a(ii) 21.97 25.29 23.63 20.00 492.5 206.3 286.3 0.48 138.8 345.1
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 20.0 0.0 20.0 #N/A #N/A #N/A
Driving Mode #N/A
E' Mpa 80.0 ν' 0.25 G' Mpa 32.0
(h0-D)/D - 1.40 σv kPa 286.3 9 c
F2 - 0.63 φ' rad 0.35 c' kPa 17.33
107
Chainage 0 + 820
Input 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 20.0 0.0 20.0 #N/A #N/A #N/A
Driving Mode #N/A
E' Mpa 80.0 ν' 0.25 G' Mpa 32.0
(h0-D)/D - 1.35 σv kPa 280.8 9 c
F2 - 0.63 φ' rad 0.35 c' kPa 17.33
105
Chainage 0 + 880
Input 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Groundwater below surface zw m 0.0 -7.40 axis level m m kPa deg kN/m3 [MPa] [--] [m]
ratio plastic radius/tunnel radius re/R - 1.3 0 Unit 1 0.00 3.10 1.55 18.00 47.9 89.5 -41.6 0.46 -18.9 70.6
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 20.0 74.0 -54.0 #N/A #N/A #N/A
Face pressure for stable face in undrained condition limit N 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 20.0 74.0 -54.0 #N/A #N/A #N/A
Stability Number Tc - #N/A 6.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 20.0 74.0 -54.0 #N/A #N/A #N/A
Calculated face pressure σTc kPa #N/A 7 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 20.0 74.0 -54.0 #N/A #N/A #N/A
Applied face pressure σ_face kPa #N/A 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 20.0 74.0 -54.0 #N/A #N/A #N/A
Driving Mode #N/A
E' Mpa 80.0 ν' 0.25 G' Mpa 32.0
(h0-D)/D - 0.57 σv kPa 69.5 9 c
Factors F0 - 0.51 Support Ratio α -0.08
F1 - 3.36 grouting pressure pi kPa -5.71
F2 - 0.66 φ' rad 0.34 c' kPa 17.33
72
displacements pv = pi - g' * (Re-R) -5.71 0
Chainage 1 + 000
Input 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Groundwater below surface zw m 0.0 -6.12 axis level m m kPa deg kN/m3 [MPa] [--] [m]
ratio plastic radius / tunnel radius re/R - 1.2 0 Unit 1 0.00 4.30 2.15 18.00 58.7 82.5 -23.8 0.46 -10.8 71.7
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 20.0 61.0 -41.0 #N/A #N/A #N/A
Face pressure for stable face in undrained condition limit N 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 20.0 61.0 -41.0 #N/A #N/A #N/A
Stability Number Tc - #N/A 6.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 20.0 61.0 -41.0 #N/A #N/A #N/A
Calculated face pressure σTc kPa #N/A 7 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 20.0 61.0 -41.0 #N/A #N/A #N/A
Applied face pressure σ_face kPa #N/A 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 20.0 61.0 -41.0 #N/A #N/A #N/A
Driving Mode #N/A
E' Mpa 80.0 ν' 0.25 G' Mpa 32.0
(h0-D)/D - 0.63 σv kPa 88.2 9 c
F2 - 0.66 φ' rad 0.34 c' kPa 17.33
73
Chainage 1 + 180
Input 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 20.0 0.0 20.0 #N/A #N/A #N/A
Driving Mode #N/A
E' Mpa 80.0 ν' 0.25 G' Mpa 32.0
(h0-D)/D - 1.08 σv kPa 233.9 9 c
F2 - 0.64 φ' rad 0.35 c' kPa 17.33
95
Chainage 1 + 260
Input 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 20.0 0.0 20.0 #N/A #N/A #N/A
Driving Mode #N/A
E' Mpa 80.0 ν' 0.25 G' Mpa 32.0
(h0-D)/D - 0.87 σv kPa 178.8 9 c
F2 - 0.64 φ' rad 0.36 c' kPa 17.33
101
Chainage 1 + 340
Input 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Geotechnical Unit at tunnel axis level Unit 1 12 c Unit 1 13.5 16.8 0 33 18 25 0 0 110 60 83 3 0 3.3
Geotechnical Unit at invert Unit 2a(ii) x Unit 1 16.8 20.2 0 33 18 25 0 0 110 60 83 3 0 3.3
minimum tail void grouting pressure ptv kPa 255 1.020 Elastic m m m kN/m3 kPa kPa kPa - kPa kPa
Air pressure for cutter head maintance x Unit 1 16.85 20.17 18.51 18.00 353.1 165.1 188.0 0.46 85.6 250.7
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 20.0 0.0 20.0 #N/A #N/A #N/A
Driving Mode #N/A
E' Mpa 25.0 ν' 0.25 G' Mpa 10.0
(h0-D)/D - 0.66 σv kPa 161.5 9 c
F2 - 0.63 φ' rad 0.38 c' kPa 5.78
Effective support pressure σ' kPa 109 plastic radius Re m 4.980 5.110 Elastic 1.05 tolerance for plastic state
109
Chainage 1 + 420
Input 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 20.0 0.0 20.0 #N/A #N/A #N/A
Driving Mode #N/A
E' Mpa 25.0 ν' 0.25 G' Mpa 10.0
(h0-D)/D - 0.46 σv kPa 154.4 9 c
F2 - 0.61 φ' rad 0.41 c' kPa 5.78
99
Chainage 1 + 540
Input 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 20.0 0.0 20.0 #N/A #N/A #N/A
Driving Mode #N/A
E' Mpa 25.0 ν' 0.25 G' Mpa 10.0
(h0-D)/D - 0.32 σv kPa 147.1 9 c
F2 - 0.60 φ' rad 0.43 c' kPa 5.78
92
Chainage #N/A
Input 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Groundwater below surface zw m 0.0 #N/A axis level m m kPa deg kN/m3 [MPa] [--] [m]
Overburden above crown C m #N/A 5 Unit 1 0.0 11.9 0 33 18 25 0 0 393 214 298 12 0 11.9
Geotechnical Unit at crown #N/A Unit 1 #N/A Unit 1 11.9 #N/A 0 33 18 25 0 #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A
Geotechnical Unit at tunnel axis level Unit 2a(ii) 12 c Unit 1 #N/A #N/A 0 33 18 25 0 #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A
Geotechnical Unit at invert Unit 2a(ii) x Unit 2a(ii) #N/A #N/A 26 31 20 80 125 #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A
Drained cohesion at face c' kPa #N/A i Unit 2a(ii) #N/A #N/A 26 31 20 80 125 #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A
Drained friction angle at face φ' deg #N/A
Undrained cohesion at face Cu kPa #N/A
γφ - 1.5 Average over overburden #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A
shear reduction factor (excess pwp) fφ - #N/A Average over tunnel diameter #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A
reduced friction angle (excess pwp) φ' deg #N/A
Avg overburden bulk unit weight γ kN/m3 #N/A SPT
Avg overburden bouyant unit weight γ' kN/m3 #N/A consider zw and q depth [m]
total vertical stress σv kPa #N/A 7
total horizontal stress σh kPa #N/A 12 Average SPT #DIV/0!
total octaeder stress σct kPa #N/A
pore pressure u kPa #N/A 8 In-situ stress at centre of each layer
effective vertical stress σ'v kPa #N/A 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
effective horizontal stress σ'h kPa #N/A 11 Geot. depth depth Δd γ σv u σ'v k'o, min σ'h σh
Tail Void Pressure to restrict Volume Loss #N/A 300 Unit from to 0.0 Water pressure at ground surface
minimum tail void grouting pressure ptv kPa #N/A 1.200 #N/A m m m kN/m3 kPa kPa kPa - kPa kPa
ratio plastic radius / tunnel radius re/R - #N/A 0 Unit 1 0.00 11.90 5.95 18.00 127.1 59.5 67.6 0.46 30.8 90.3
volume loss VL2 VL2 % #N/A 0 Unit 1 11.90 #N/A #N/A 18.00 #N/A #N/A #N/A 0.46 #N/A #N/A
radial displacement of soil in gap u mm #N/A c Unit 1 #N/A #N/A #N/A 18.00 #N/A #N/A #N/A 0.46 #N/A #N/A
Air pressure for cutter head maintance x Unit 2a(ii) #N/A #N/A #N/A 20.00 #N/A #N/A #N/A 0.48 #N/A #N/A
required air-pressure (u at centre) ua kPa #N/A 1.10 i Unit 2a(ii) #N/A #N/A #N/A 20.00 #N/A #N/A #N/A 0.48 #N/A #N/A
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 20.0 0.0 20.0 #N/A #N/A #N/A
Driving Mode #N/A
water table above axis h0 m #N/A
E' Mpa 80.0 ν' 0.25 G' Mpa 32.0
porewater pressure diff. due to flow Δh m #N/A Eu Mpa 106.7 νu 0.50 G MPa 35.6
check if h0 <H+D; yes=1, no=0 #N/A kp #N/A b 0.90 overcut m 0.010 0.0 0% part only due to
relation H/D - #N/A shield sitting in the invert
(h0-D)/D - #N/A σv kPa #N/A 9 c
Factors F0 - #N/A Support Ratio α #N/A
F1 - #N/A grouting pressure pi kPa #N/A
F2 - #N/A φ' rad #N/A c' kPa #N/A
F3 - #N/A tunnel radius R m 4.980
Effective support pressure σ' kPa #N/A plastic radius Re m #N/A #N/A #N/A 1.05 tolerance for plastic state
#N/A
displacements pv = pi - g' * (Re-R) #N/A 0
Total support pressure σTOT kPa #N/A 1.0 crown mm #N/A mg = 1 / ν 4.00
consider pore side mm #N/A #N/A average displacement
pressure at crown VL % #N/A #N/A add closure along shield and increase if total
Chainage 1 + 810
Input 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Geotechnical Unit at tunnel axis level Unit 2a(i) 12 Unit 1 5.0 10.9 0 33 18 25 0 0 193 106 147 6 0 5.9
Geotechnical Unit at invert Unit 2a(ii) c Unit 1 10.9 14.2 0 33 18 25 0 0 110 60 83 3 0 3.3
Drained cohesion at face c' kPa 10.3 x Unit 2a(i) 14.2 17.5 5 35 20 55 0 17 116 66 183 3 0 3.3
Drained friction angle at face φ' deg 33.0 i Unit 2a(ii) 17.5 20.8 26 31 20 80 125 86 103 66 266 3 415 3.3
radial displacement of soil in gap u mm 10.1 0 Unit 1 5.00 10.86 7.93 18.00 162.8 54.3 108.4 0.46 49.4 103.7
Air pressure for cutter head maintance c Unit 1 10.86 14.18 12.52 18.00 245.4 100.2 145.2 0.46 66.1 166.3
required air-pressure (u at centre) ua kPa 147 1.10 x Unit 2a(i) 14.18 17.50 15.84 20.00 336.8 133.4 203.4 0.43 86.7 220.2
i Unit 2a(ii) 17.50 20.82 19.16 20.00 403.2 166.6 236.6 0.48 114.8 281.4
Driving Mode #N/A
E' Mpa 55.0 ν' 0.25 G' Mpa 22.0
(h0-D)/D - 0.34 σv kPa 145.2 9 c
F2 - 0.59 φ' rad 0.43 c' kPa 6.89
89
Chainage 1 + 930
Input 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Geotechnical Unit at crown OK Unit 2a(i) Unit 2a(i) Unit 1 3.0 9.5 0 33 18 25 0 0 215 117 163 7 0 6.5
Geotechnical Unit at tunnel axis level Unit 2a(ii) 12 Unit 2a(i) 9.5 11.9 5 35 20 55 0 12 84 48 133 2 0 2.4
Geotechnical Unit at invert Unit 2a(ii) c Unit 2a(i) 11.9 15.2 5 35 20 55 0 17 116 66 183 3 0 3.3
Drained cohesion at face c' kPa 19.0 x Unit 2a(ii) 15.2 18.6 26 31 20 80 125 86 103 66 266 3 415 3.3
radial displacement of soil in gap u mm 9.6 0 Unit 2a(i) 9.50 11.91 10.71 20.00 234.1 87.1 147.1 0.43 62.7 149.8
Air pressure for cutter head maintance c Unit 2a(i) 11.91 15.23 13.57 20.00 291.4 115.7 175.7 0.43 74.9 190.7
required air-pressure (u at centre) ua kPa 164 1.10 x Unit 2a(ii) 15.23 18.55 16.89 20.00 357.8 148.9 208.9 0.48 101.3 250.2
i Unit 2a(ii) 18.55 21.87 20.21 20.00 424.2 182.1 242.1 0.48 117.4 299.5
Driving Mode #N/A
E' Mpa 80.0 ν' 0.25 G' Mpa 32.0
(h0-D)/D - 0.50 σv kPa 175.7 9 c
F2 - 0.62 φ' rad 0.40 c' kPa 12.67
83
Chainage 2 + 070
Input 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Geotechnical Unit at crown OK Unit 2a(ii) Unit 2a(ii) Unit 2a(i) 8.0 13.5 5 35 20 55 0 28 193 110 303 6 0 5.5
Geotechnical Unit at tunnel axis level Unit 2a(ii) 12 Unit 2a(ii) 13.5 16.0 26 31 20 80 125 64 76 49 196 2 306 2.5
Geotechnical Unit at invert Unit 2a(ii) c Unit 2a(ii) 16.0 19.3 26 31 20 80 125 86 103 66 266 3 415 3.3
volume loss VL2 VL2 % 0.50 0 Unit 2a(i) 8.00 13.50 10.75 20.00 235.0 77.5 157.5 0.43 67.2 144.7
radial displacement of soil in gap u mm 10.2 0 Unit 2a(ii) 13.50 15.95 14.73 20.00 314.5 117.3 197.3 0.48 95.7 212.9
Air pressure for cutter head maintance c Unit 2a(ii) 15.95 19.27 17.61 20.00 372.2 146.1 226.1 0.48 109.6 255.7
i Unit 2a(ii) 22.59 25.91 24.25 20.00 505.0 212.5 292.5 0.48 141.9 354.4
Driving Mode #N/A
E' Mpa 80.0 ν' 0.25 G' Mpa 32.0
(h0-D)/D - 0.80 σv kPa 226.1 9 c
F2 - 0.62 φ' rad 0.38 c' kPa 17.33
87
Chainage 2 + 250
Input 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Geotechnical Unit at crown OK Unit 2a(i) Unit 2a(i) Unit 2a(i) 6.2 5.0 5 35 20 55 0 -6 -42 -24 -66 -1 0 -1.2
i Unit 2a(ii) 27.47 30.79 29.13 20.00 602.5 261.3 341.3 0.48 165.5 426.8
Driving Mode #N/A
E' Mpa 80.0 ν' 0.25 G' Mpa 32.0
(h0-D)/D - 1.29 σv kPa 274.9 9 c
F2 - 0.61 φ' rad 0.38 c' kPa 12.67
121
Chainage 2 + 350
Input 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
i Unit 2a(ii) 27.56 30.88 29.22 20.00 604.4 262.2 342.2 0.48 165.9 428.1
Driving Mode #N/A
E' Mpa 80.0 ν' 0.25 G' Mpa 32.0
(h0-D)/D - 1.30 σv kPa 275.8 9 c
F2 - 0.62 φ' rad 0.36 c' kPa 17.33
108
Chainage 2 + 510
Input 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
i Unit 2a(ii) 25.13 28.45 26.79 20.00 555.7 237.9 317.9 0.48 154.1 392.0
Driving Mode #N/A
E' Mpa 80.0 ν' 0.25 G' Mpa 32.0
(h0-D)/D - 1.05 σv kPa 251.5 9 c
F2 - 0.62 φ' rad 0.37 c' kPa 17.33
100
Chainage 2 + 710
Input 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
i Unit 2a(ii) 22.67 25.99 24.33 20.00 506.6 203.3 303.3 0.48 147.1 350.4
Driving Mode #N/A
E' Mpa 80.0 ν' 0.25 G' Mpa 32.0
(h0-D)/D - 0.71 σv kPa 236.9 9 c
F2 - 0.61 φ' rad 0.40 c' kPa 17.33
84
Chainage #N/A
Input 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Geotechnical Unit at crown #N/A Unit 2a(ii) #N/A Unit 2a(i) 7.0 12.5 5 35 20 55 0 28 193 110 303 6 0 5.5
Geotechnical Unit at tunnel axis level Unit 2a(ii) 12 Unit 2a(ii) 12.5 #N/A 26 31 20 80 125 #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A
Geotechnical Unit at invert Unit 2a(ii) c Unit 2a(ii) #N/A #N/A 26 31 20 80 125 #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A
Drained cohesion at face c' kPa #N/A x Unit 2a(ii) #N/A #N/A 26 31 20 80 125 #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A
Drained friction angle at face φ' deg #N/A i Unit 2a(ii) #N/A #N/A 26 31 20 80 125 #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A
Tail Void Pressure to restrict Volume Loss #N/A 300 Unit from to 0.0 Water pressure at ground surface
volume loss VL2 VL2 % #N/A 0 Unit 2a(i) 7.00 12.50 9.75 20.00 215.0 97.5 117.5 0.43 50.1 147.6
radial displacement of soil in gap u mm #N/A 0 Unit 2a(ii) 12.50 #N/A #N/A 20.00 #N/A #N/A #N/A 0.48 #N/A #N/A
Air pressure for cutter head maintance c Unit 2a(ii) #N/A #N/A #N/A 20.00 #N/A #N/A #N/A 0.48 #N/A #N/A
required air-pressure (u at centre) ua kPa #N/A 1.10 x Unit 2a(ii) #N/A #N/A #N/A 20.00 #N/A #N/A #N/A 0.48 #N/A #N/A
i Unit 2a(ii) #N/A #N/A #N/A 20.00 #N/A #N/A #N/A 0.48 #N/A #N/A
Driving Mode #N/A
E' Mpa 80.0 ν' 0.25 G' Mpa 32.0
#N/A
Chainage 2 + 860
Input 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
i Unit 2a(ii) 22.47 25.79 24.13 20.00 502.6 201.3 301.3 0.48 146.1 347.4
Driving Mode #N/A
E' Mpa 80.0 ν' 0.25 G' Mpa 32.0
(h0-D)/D - 0.69 σv kPa 234.9 9 c
F2 - 0.61 φ' rad 0.41 c' kPa 17.33
83
Chainage 3 + 060
Input 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Geotechnical Unit at invert Unit 2b c Unit 2a(ii) 18.7 22.1 26 31 20 80 125 86 103 66 266 3 415 3.3
Drained friction angle at face φ' deg 32.3 i Unit 2b 25.4 28.7 55 35 20 100 175 183 116 66 332 3 581 3.3
i Unit 2b 25.38 28.70 27.04 20.00 560.8 225.4 335.4 0.43 143.0 368.5
Driving Mode #N/A
E' Mpa 80.0 ν' 0.25 G' Mpa 32.0
(h0-D)/D - 0.93 σv kPa 269.0 9 c
F2 - 0.59 φ' rad 0.41 c' kPa 23.78
63
Chainage 3 + 180
Input 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Geotechnical Unit at crown OK Unit 2a(i) Unit 2a(i) Unit 2a(i) 9.5 15.0 5 35 20 55 0 28 193 110 303 6 0 5.5
Geotechnical Unit at invert Unit 2b c Unit 2a(i) 18.7 22.0 5 35 20 55 0 17 116 66 183 3 0 3.3
i Unit 2b 25.30 28.62 26.96 20.00 559.3 239.6 319.6 0.43 136.3 375.9
Driving Mode #N/A
E' Mpa 80.0 ν' 0.25 G' Mpa 32.0
(h0-D)/D - 1.07 σv kPa 253.2 9 c
F2 - 0.60 φ' rad 0.40 c' kPa 19.11
80
Chainage 3 + 400
Input 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
i Unit 2a(ii) 28.58 31.90 30.24 20.00 624.7 267.4 357.4 0.48 173.3 440.7
Driving Mode #N/A
E' Mpa 80.0 ν' 0.25 G' Mpa 32.0
(h0-D)/D - 1.35 σv kPa 291.0 9 c
F2 - 0.62 φ' rad 0.36 c' kPa 17.33
107
Chainage 3 + 520
Input 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
i Unit 2a(ii) 29.94 33.26 31.60 20.00 652.0 283.0 369.0 0.48 179.0 462.0
Driving Mode #N/A
E' Mpa 80.0 ν' 0.25 G' Mpa 32.0
(h0-D)/D - 1.51 σv kPa 302.6 9 c
F2 - 0.62 φ' rad 0.35 c' kPa 17.33
113
Chainage 3 + 600
Input 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
i Unit 2a(ii) 31.04 34.36 32.70 20.00 674.0 290.0 384.0 0.48 186.2 476.3
Driving Mode #N/A
E' Mpa 80.0 ν' 0.25 G' Mpa 32.0
(h0-D)/D - 1.58 σv kPa 317.6 9 c
F2 - 0.62 φ' rad 0.35 c' kPa 17.33
153
Chainage 3 + 640
Input 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Geotechnical Unit at invert Unit 2b c Unit 2a(ii) 22.6 25.9 26 31 20 80 125 86 103 66 266 3 415 3.3
i Unit 2b 29.20 32.52 30.86 20.00 732.3 288.6 443.6 0.43 189.2 477.8
Driving Mode #N/A
E' Mpa 80.0 ν' 0.25 G' Mpa 32.0
(h0-D)/D - 1.56 σv kPa 377.2 9 c
F2 - 0.53 φ' rad 0.47 c' kPa 23.78
107
Chainage 3 + 880
Input 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Geotechnical Unit at crown OK Unit 2a(i) Unit 2a(i) Unit 2a(i) 9.5 5.0 5 35 20 55 0 -23 -158 -90 -248 -5 0 -4.5
Geotechnical Unit at invert Unit 2b c Unit 2a(i) 16.9 20.2 5 35 20 55 0 17 116 66 183 3 0 3.3
i Unit 2b 23.53 26.85 25.19 20.00 523.7 231.9 291.9 0.43 124.5 356.3
Driving Mode #N/A
E' Mpa 80.0 ν' 0.25 G' Mpa 32.0
(h0-D)/D - 0.99 σv kPa 225.5 9 c
F2 - 0.61 φ' rad 0.39 c' kPa 19.11
75
Chainage 4 + 000
Input 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Geotechnical Unit at crown OK Unit 2a(i) Unit 2a(i) Unit 1 5.0 14.0 0 33 18 25 0 0 297 162 225 9 0 9.0
i Unit 2a(ii) 21.90 25.22 23.56 20.00 491.3 215.6 275.6 0.48 133.7 349.3
Driving Mode #N/A
E' Mpa 80.0 ν' 0.25 G' Mpa 32.0
(h0-D)/D - 0.83 σv kPa 209.2 9 c
F2 - 0.63 φ' rad 0.37 c' kPa 12.67
95
Chainage #N/A
Input 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Geotechnical Unit at crown #N/A Unit 1 #N/A Unit 1 3.0 5.0 0 33 18 25 0 0 66 36 50 2 0 2.0
Geotechnical Unit at tunnel axis level Unit 2a(ii) 12 Unit 1 5.0 #N/A 0 33 18 25 0 #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A
Geotechnical Unit at invert Unit 2a(ii) c Unit 1 #N/A #N/A 0 33 18 25 0 #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A
Drained cohesion at face c' kPa #N/A x Unit 2a(ii) #N/A #N/A 26 31 20 80 125 #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A
Drained friction angle at face φ' deg #N/A i Unit 2a(ii) #N/A #N/A 26 31 20 80 125 #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A
Tail Void Pressure to restrict Volume Loss #N/A 500 Unit from to centre 0.0 Water pressure at ground surface
volume loss VL2 VL2 % #N/A 0 Unit 1 3.00 5.00 4.00 18.00 92.0 40.0 52.0 0.46 23.7 63.7
radial displacement of soil in gap u mm #N/A 0 Unit 1 5.00 #N/A #N/A 18.00 #N/A #N/A #N/A 0.46 #N/A #N/A
Air pressure for cutter head maintance c Unit 1 #N/A #N/A #N/A 18.00 #N/A #N/A #N/A 0.46 #N/A #N/A
required air-pressure (u at centre) ua kPa #N/A 1.10 x Unit 2a(ii) #N/A #N/A #N/A 20.00 #N/A #N/A #N/A 0.48 #N/A #N/A
i Unit 2a(ii) #N/A #N/A #N/A 20.00 #N/A #N/A #N/A 0.48 #N/A #N/A
Driving Mode #N/A
E' Mpa 80.0 ν' 0.25 G' Mpa 32.0
#N/A
APPENDIX 4
SPECIFIC REFERENCE LITERATURE
G. Anagnostou, K. Kovari: “Face Stability in Slurry and EPB Shield Tunnelling”

Rev B2
APPENDIX 5
DRAWINGS WITH SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS
5 Summary Drawings:
Red Line North – Bored Tunnel

Burjuman Station to City Centre Station
Ring Reinforcement Types & TBM Operation Parameters – 5 Sheets
DWG. No. DM001-E-ACW-CBT-DD-DCC-339131 to 339135

Rev B2
APPENDIX 6
ADDITIONAL DISCUSSIONS

Rev B2
From: Paul Groves
Sent: 30 January 2007 18:55
To: Junichiro Nakayama
Cc: Yoichi Shimada; Alan May; 'Arun Parmar'; 'Oskar Sigl'
Subject: Control of settlement to 25mm rather than 30mm
Nakayama san,
As discussed, we have reviewed calculations (Report DM001-E-ACW-DDR-DR-DCC-339970,

Rev B1). In order to now reduce the Design Value of predicted settlement to a maximum of
25mm (ie such that the Maximum Allowable “Action Level” of 120% of Design Value does not
exceed 30mm), adjustment of the face pressure and/or tail-skin annulus grouting pressure is
required.
Based on a simple back-check, it appears that to reduce predicted settlements (current

maximum 29.9mm) to 25mm means reduction in Volume Loss (VL%) by up to 0.08% of the
predicted VL% reported previously (as indicated in attached spreadsheet). This is a rather small
reduction to achieve. To accurately predict the required change in face pressure and/or tailskin
annulus pressure, we note the following:
a) We prefer to adjust face pressure rather than annulus grouting pressures as a first action
to reduce likely settlement as it has a greater control impact and hence, intend not to
amend grouting pressure at this stage;
b) In order to predict the improvement in predicted settlement at any location a detailed

assessment may be required (eg using numerical analysis), however, given that the
cases requiring adjustment are relatively close to the section analysed in detail and
illustrated in Report DM001-E-ACW-DDR-DR-DCC-339970, Rev B1, we consider that
adjustments may be based on the Volume Loss vs Face Pressure relationship developed
for Ch.1+500 (Fig 4-1).
Therefore, despite the non-linear relationship between Volume Loss vs Face Pressure, given the
required volume loss change magnitude and applied face pressure range, we interpolate that an
increase by 35kPa in Total Face Pressure, will reduce Volume Loss by approximately 0.1%, that
is, a greater reduction than is required.
TABLE: PROPOSED AMENDMENT
Min. face pressure
Stretch Chainage Original Revised
From To pressure pressure
(kPa) (kPa)
1 Burjuman 00+120 n/a n/a

2 00+120 00+540 n/a n/a
3 00+540 00+760 n/a n/a
4 00+760 00+820 n/a n/a
5 00+820 00+880 n/a n/a
6 00+880 01+000 n/a n/a
7 01+000 01+180 n/a n/a
8 01+180 01+260 n/a n/a
9 01+260 01+340 225 260
10 01+340 01+420 194 229
11 01+420 01+540 173 208
12 01+540 Union Sq n/a n/a
13 Union Sq 01+810 172 207
14 01+810 01+930 182 217
15 01+930 02+070 216 251
16 02+070 02+250 n/a n/a
17 02+250 02+350 n/a n/a
18 02+350 02+510 n/a n/a
19 02+510 02+710 204 239
20 02+710 Al Rigga n/a n/a
21 Al Rigga 02+860 202 237
22 02+860 03+060 n/a n/a
23 03+060 03+180 n/a n/a
24 03+180 03+400 n/a n/a
25 03+400 03+520 n/a n/a
26 03+520 03+600 n/a n/a
27 03+600 03+640 n/a n/a
28 03+640 03+880 n/a n/a
29 03+880 04+000 n/a n/a
30 04+000 City Centre n/a n/a
This advice may need to be refined by further analysis and the extent of changes may vary.
Notwithstanding this, as you know, we will need to validate the face pressure application and its
control of settlement through observation as tunnelling proceeds, on which basis our
assessments may need to be updated.
Regards
Paul
TABLE: PREDICTED SETTLEMENT BASED ON ADOPTED FACE PRESSURE AND TAILSKIN GROUTING PRESSURE
Stretch Chainage Min Cover (m) Depth to base Tunnel Volume loss VL Trough width Max settlement
From To Units 1 & 2ai (m) excavation (%) parameter, k (mm)
diameter (m)
1 Burjuman 00+120 18.2 21.5 9.59 0.49 0.30 20.6
2 00+120 00+540 21.5 24.8 9.59 0.49 0.30 17.9
3 00+540 00+760 22.0 13.9 9.59 0.49 0.27 19.7
4 00+760 00+820 21.4 13.4 9.59 0.49 0.27 20.1
5 00+820 00+880 10.7 3.1 9.59 0.29 0.29 19.0
6 00+880 01+000 11.3 4.3 9.59 0.23 0.28 14.7
7 01+000 01+180 17.7 10.0 9.59 0.49 0.27 23.1
8 01+180 01+260 15.7 19.0 9.59 0.50 0.30 23.5
9 01+260 01+340 13.5 20.2 9.59 0.50 0.30 26.3
10 01+340 01+420 12.0 18.7 9.59 0.50 0.30 28.6
11 01+420 01+540 11.0 17.5 9.59 0.49 0.30 29.9
12 01+540 Union Sq - - - - - - Fig 4-1 extracted from Report DM001-E-ACW-DDR-DR-DCC-339970, Rev B1
13 Union Sq 01+810 13.0 17.5 9.59 0.50 0.30 27.0
14 01+810 01+930 14.1 15.2 9.59 0.50 0.30 25.5
15 01+930 02+070 16.0 13.5 9.59 0.50 0.26 27.0
16 02+070 02+250 20.8 24.1 9.59 0.49 0.30 18.4
17 02+250 02+350 20.9 11.0 9.59 0.50 0.27 20.5
18 02+350 02+510 18.5 8.5 9.59 0.50 0.28 22.4
19 02+510 02+710 16.0 12.5 9.59 0.50 0.26 26.6
20 02+710 Al Rigga - - - - - -
21 Al Rigga 02+860 15.8 12.5 9.59 0.50 0.26 26.9
22 02+860 03+060 18.7 12.0 9.59 0.50 0.27 22.9
23 03+060 03+180 18.7 22.0 9.59 0.50 0.30 20.5
24 03+180 03+400 21.9 15.5 9.59 0.50 0.26 20.4
25 03+400 03+520 23.3 15.5 9.59 0.50 0.27 19.3
26 03+520 03+600 24.4 15.5 9.59 0.20 0.27 7.4
27 03+600 03+640 22.6 15.0 9.59 0.57 0.27 22.6
28 03+640 03+880 16.9 20.2 9.59 0.49 0.30 21.8
29 03+880 04+000 15.3 18.6 9.59 0.50 0.30 24.0
30 04+000 City Centre - - - - - -
TABLE: PROPOSED AMENDMENT

Min. face pressure
Stretch Chainage Min Cover (m) Depth to base Tunnel Volume loss VL Trough width Max settlement % change in Change in VL Original Revised
From To Units 1 & 2ai (m) excavation (%) parameter, k (mm) VL to meet to meet 25mm pressure pressure
diameter (m) 25mm (kPa) (kPa)
1 Burjuman 00+120 18.2 21.5 9.59 0.49 0.30 20.6 - - - -
2 00+120 00+540 21.5 24.8 9.59 0.49 0.30 17.9 - - - -
3 00+540 00+760 22.0 13.9 9.59 0.49 0.27 19.7 - - - -
4 00+760 00+820 21.4 13.4 9.59 0.49 0.27 20.1 - - - -
5 00+820 00+880 10.7 3.1 9.59 0.29 0.29 19.0 - - - -
6 00+880 01+000 11.3 4.3 9.59 0.23 0.28 14.7 - - - -
7 01+000 01+180 17.7 10.0 9.59 0.49 0.27 23.1 - - - -
8 01+180 01+260 15.7 19.0 9.59 0.50 0.30 23.5 - - - -
9 01+260 01+340 13.5 20.2 9.59 0.47 0.30 24.7 -6.0 -0.03 225 260
10 01+340 01+420 12.0 18.7 9.59 0.43 0.30 24.6 -14.0 -0.07 194 229
11 01+420 01+540 11.0 17.5 9.59 0.41 0.30 25.0 -16.3 -0.08 173 208
12 01+540 Union Sq - - - - - - - - - -
13 Union Sq 01+810 13.0 17.5 9.59 0.46 0.30 24.9 -8.0 -0.04 172 207
14 01+810 01+930 14.1 15.2 9.59 0.49 0.30 25.0 -2.0 -0.01 182 217
15 01+930 02+070 16.0 13.5 9.59 0.46 0.26 24.9 -8.0 -0.04 216 251
16 02+070 02+250 20.8 24.1 9.59 0.49 0.30 18.4 - - - -
17 02+250 02+350 20.9 11.0 9.59 0.50 0.27 20.5 - - - -
18 02+350 02+510 18.5 8.5 9.59 0.50 0.28 22.4 - - - -
19 02+510 02+710 16.0 12.5 9.59 0.47 0.26 25.0 -6.0 -0.03 204 239
20 02+710 Al Rigga - - - - - - - - - -
21 Al Rigga 02+860 15.8 12.5 9.59 0.46 0.26 24.7 -8.0 -0.04 202 237
22 02+860 03+060 18.7 12.0 9.59 0.50 0.27 22.9 - - - -
23 03+060 03+180 18.7 22.0 9.59 0.50 0.30 20.5 - - - -
24 03+180 03+400 21.9 15.5 9.59 0.50 0.26 20.4 - - - -
25 03+400 03+520 23.3 15.5 9.59 0.50 0.27 19.3 - - - -
26 03+520 03+600 24.4 15.5 9.59 0.20 0.27 7.4 - - - -
27 03+600 03+640 22.6 15.0 9.59 0.57 0.27 22.6 - - - -
28 03+640 03+880 16.9 20.2 9.59 0.49 0.30 21.8 - - - -
29 03+880 04+000 15.3 18.6 9.59 0.50 0.30 24.0 - - - -
30 04+000 City Centre - - - - - - - - - -

Face Pressure Calculation Red Line-Dubai Metro

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Face Pressure Calculation Red Line-Dubai Metro

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Face Pressure Calculation Red Line-Dubai Metro

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DUBAI RAPID LINK CONSORTIUM

DUBAI METRO PROJECT

TBM Face Pressure Calculations

WS Atkins & Partners Overseas

2 SEQUENCING OF SETTLEMENT DESIGN DOCUMENTATION.....................................................7

Document No.: DM001-E-ACW-DDR-DR-DCC-339970 Date: 21 March 2007

Revision Description of Amendments Date

A0 Draft Submission 04 October 206

A1 1st Submission – DCP3 09 October 2006

B1 DCP4 Submission – Replies to Engineer’s Comments 08 January 2007

B2 Re-submission with minor amendments: 21 March 2007

D:\Changed\Dubai\TBM face press\Rev.B2\DM0001-E-ACW-DDR-DR-DCC-339970_(B2)TBM face press.doc

Document No.: DM001-E-ACW-DDR-DR-DCC-339970 Date: 21 March 2007

Document No.: DM001-E-ACW-DDR-DR-DCC-339970 Date: 21 March 2007

2 SEQUENCING OF SETTLEMENT DESIGN DOCUMENTATION

2.1 Volume Loss Assessment

2.2 Analysis of Ground Movements

2.3 Assessment of Construction Impact

2.4 TBM Face Pressure Calculations

Document No.: DM001-E-ACW-DDR-DR-DCC-339970 Date: 21 March 2007

Document No.: DM001-E-ACW-DDR-DR-DCC-339970 Date: 21 March 2007

4.1 Geotechnical Conditions

Geotechnical parameters are discussed in Section 4.2 below.

Table 4.1 Geotechnical Units

4.1.1 Tunnel Drive 1 – Southern Drive:

Document No.: DM001-E-ACW-DDR-DR-DCC-339970 Date: 21 March 2007

4.1.2 Tunnel Drive 2 – Northern Drive

4.2 Design Parameters

Document No.: DM001-E-ACW-DDR-DR-DCC-339970 Date: 21 March 2007

4.3 Factors of Safety

Bored Tunnel - Face Pressure vs Volume Loss (Plaxis)

1.0% Factor 1.2

Total Face Pressure [kPa]

Plaxis--KP1+500 Plaxis--KP0+200 Plaxis--KP0+200(MF)

Figure 4-1 Justification of Safety Margins (Based on Figure 3-1 in Ref.[7])

Document No.: DM001-E-ACW-DDR-DR-DCC-339970 Date: 21 March 2007

5.1 Approach for Face Stability

5.1.1 Drained case

3. Stratification and mixed face conditions are considered

5.1.2 Undrained case

5.2 Approach for Tail Void Grouting Pressure

Document No.: DM001-E-ACW-DDR-DR-DCC-339970 Date: 21 March 2007

The following design considerations can be mentioned in particular:

5.3 Approach for Compressed Air Support

5.4 Calculation Sections

Document No.: DM001-E-ACW-DDR-DR-DCC-339970 Date: 21 March 2007

Table 5.1 Analysis Sections

Sequ. Nr. Chainage Remarks

1 00+120 Shallow cover before arrival at Burjuman Station, Unit

2 00+540 Located at Unit 1 low point, Unit 1 assumed to extend

3 00+760 Located at alignment low point at Annex 1

4 00+820 Regular section just before Creek crossing

5 00+880 Section under the Creek with minimum overburden,

6 01+000 Section under the Creek, ground water pressure head

7 01+180 Regular section just after Creek crossing, cover of Unit

8 01+260 Unit 2a(ii) appears in the tunnel crown

9 01+340 Shallower cover, Unit 2a(ii) reaches down to tunnel

10 01+420 Shallower cover, Unit 2a(ii) reaches down to tunnel