THE ITALIAN ART OF TUNNELING

Literature survey will show that the fundamentals of modern tunnelling were already well understood
during 19th and 20th century. The basic processes were almost completely understood by then and the
only actual innovations have been in the use of new materials (shotcrete, high-strength steel, steel fibre
reinforcements, admixtures, etc).

Based on the country of origin and underlying principles, there have been many classification of
"tunnelling methods". It is quite obvious that differentiation of various "tunnelling methods" is sometimes
difficult and they often overlap with each other. More often, a combination of "methods" offers an optimal
solution for the problem at hand. However, for the case of classification, the classical tunnelling methods
can be broadly divided into:

German Tunnelling Method - Core method

The English Tunnelling Method - Longitudinal beam/ trestle method

Belgian Tunnelling Method - Underpinning method

The (old) Austrian Tunnelling Method - Upraise tunnelling

The New Austrian Tunnelling Method (NATM) - Thin-walled support to relieve ground pressure

The Italian Tunnelling Method - ADECO-RS (Lunardi Method)

This post covers some salient points of the Italian tunnelling method.

Italian - Packing method in squeezing condition [4]

Traditionally, the Italian tunnelling method referred to packing method. It is used to overcome very difficult
geological conditions (strongly squeezing rock with water ingress). Excavation is done in parts with
immediate installation of packing material (even within the finished dimension of tunnel) and later broken
out after ring closure. Later, the tunnelling method developed by Dr. Lunardi and Prof. Pelizza was
referred as New Italian method, which was called ADECO-RS (Analysis of COntrolled DEformation
in Rocks and Soils). The intention was to develop a process, which can conter the disadvantages of the
NATM in regard to safety and cost-effectiveness in squeezing ground conditions.
While the Austrian method calls for partial excavation to increase face stability, the Italian method
advocates full face excavation but with advance face support using methods like glass fibre anchors, jet
grouting etc. This results in early ring closure than with the excavation of the entire cross-section in parts
and keeps the deformation of the rock mass low. In addition, it also permits the use of large and powerful
machines and hence faster production rates.
Lunardi [3] summarizes that the ADECO-RS approach emphasis to:

Analyse the deformation response of the ground both ahead of and down from the face (using
experimental, full scale, numerical, empirical tools etc)

Controlling the susceptibility to deformation of the ground ahead of the face (advance core) by
using appropriate stabilization techniques (various face stabilization techniques proposed in Dr. Lunardi's
paper are shown below).

Choice of face stabilization methods [4]

While it may seem very similar to the New Austrian Method of measurement and control, Lunardi [3]
clearly summarizes the difference in design and control using the pictures below:

Difference in analysis approach

Difference in control approach

Elaborate explanation about ADECO-RS method is given in Dr. Lunardi's book [1].
References:
[1] P. Lunardi, Design and Construction of Tunnels: Analysis of Controlled Deformations in Rock and
Soils (ADECO-RS). Springer, 2008.
[2] Pelizza, S.; Peila, D.: Soil and Rock Reinforcements in Tunnelling. In: Tunneling and Underground
Space Tech. 8 (1993), No. 3, S. 357372.
[3] P. Lunardi, The design and constrution of tunnels using the approach based on the analysis of
controlled deformation in rock and soils, Tunnels & Tunnelling International, no. May, pp. 330, 2000.
[4] Maidl, Bernhard, Markus Thewes, and Ulrich Maidl. Handbook of Tunnel Engineering I: Structures and
Methods. Vol. 1. John Wiley & Sons, 2013.

RECENT TRENDS IN TBM FACE PRESSURE ESTIMATION

It is observed that the effective face pressure estimated using Perazzelli et al nomograms are constantly
lower than that of the Anagnostou 1996. Constant difference is maintained even with the increase of phi

values. This suggests that the method of slices leads to lower effective support pressure values (for
equilibrium condition).
The same comparison is repeated with a constant phi (= 25) but now varying the effective cohesion
instead, and results are presented in figure below. Face pressure calculated using Anagnostou 1996s
nomograms are considerably lower than the one Perazzelli et als nomograms for higher c values. This is
because, Anagnostou et al 1996 [2] considers only equilibrium of the prism and does not check the
tensile failure.

Thus, in case of high hydraulic gradient and if the cohesion of the ground is high (which may be true for
weak rocks), the necessary effective face support pressure may be much higher than the pressure
required for the stability of the wedge. Because, in this case, tensile failure rather than sliding becomes
the critical mode for the determination of support pressure [3]. This means that, in such situations
nomograms of Anagnostou et al. 1996 [2] may underestimate the necessary support pressure and thus
may be unsafe.
This effect is further studied by comparing effective face pressure with varying hydraulic gradient for two
different cohesion value (0 and 100 kPa), using both the methods and is presented in figure below.
Results indicate that, as observed above, the results from Anagnostou et al 1996 [2] are underestimating
the support pressure at higher cohesion. Another important observation is, as the hydraulic gradient
increases, the estimate by Anagnostou et al 1996 [2] is approaching the values estimated using
Perazzelli et al. i.e, the governing mechanism is changing from tensile failure back to limit equilibrium
failure.

This phenomenon important to understand to prevent underestimation of face pressure in high effective
cohesive soils.
References:
[1] Senthilnath, G.T (2014). Face Stability of Closed TBMs in Urban Tunnels. Politecnico di Torino, Italy.
[2] Anagnostou, G., and Kovri, K. (1996). Face stability in slurry and EPB shield tunnelling. In M. &
Taylor (Ed.), Geotechnical Aspects of Underground Construction in Soft Ground (pp. 453458).
[3] Perazzelli, P., Leone, T., and Anagnostou, G. (2014). Tunnel face stability under seepage flow
conditions. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 43, 459469.

Urban Tunnel - Sink Holes & Face stability

Metro Tunnel (Source)

Lately, after a recent event (details: link 1, link 2, link 3), there has been much attention in media about
the sinkholes created by underground tunnel construction in an urban setting. So, in this post I would like
to discuss the theoretical basis behind the stability calculation, which is one of the engineering
parameters used to avoid sink holes.
During an urban bored tunnel drive, instability of the face is one of the prime concern for any tunnel
manager. While the workers in TBM may be protected with the closed-face machine, the instability could
cause over-excavation and thus excessive settlements & at the worst case, a sink hole on the surface.
Usually, based on the geology, overburden, loads, water condition etc, the type of mechanised tunnelling
is chosen for the construction (more on selection of TBM is discussed here). Regardless of the type of
TBM (unless its open face rock TBM), during the TBM drive, the Tunnel engineer constantly monitors the
applied TBM face pressure with respect to the Target face pressure estimated for the anticipated
geotechnical properties. The forces/factors contributing to stability and instability of the tunnel face are:

Factors affecting the stability

Since the cohesion of the soil depends on the pore pressure dissipation, the methods can be broadly
divided into:
1. Undrained Condition (widely used method in practice - Kimura and Mair, 1981)
2. Drained Condition (widely used method in practice - Anagnostou and Kovari, 1996)
The face support could be exerted using (a) The Pore pressure in the TBM chamber and (b) The effective
support pressure excerted by the TBM. Usually in EPB, the pressure is measured by load cells in the
excavation chamber which measures the total stress, ie (a)+(b). The following plot clearly indicates that
the total pressure required for the case with maximum delta H is always less than the case in which
pressure gradient is the least. However, it is still preferred to have the pore pressure in excavation

chamber that is equal to the in situ pore pressure in the ground. This is clearly explained in Dr. Benot
Jones' article in Tunnelling Journal [2]. It can also observed that, as the cohesion increases (stabilizing
factor), the effective pressure required decreases (and hence the total pressure).

Comparison of Face Pressure - Above plot is prepared for a 6.6m dia Tunnel with 10m overburden and 20kPa surcharge. Ground water assumed
at ground level

In Slurry TBM, the pore pressure in the TBM chamber can be increased by increasing the slurry pressure.
It can be set even higher than the water pressure in the ground. Whereas in EPB, the pore pressure in
the TBM chamber is maintained by soil plug (formed in the screw conveyor) and can not be set higher
than the fluid pressure in the ground.
References:
[1] Anagnostou, G. & Kovri, K. (1996) Face stability conditions with earth-pressure-balanced shields.
Tunnelling and underground space technology. Vol. 11, No. 2, pp. 165-173.
[2] Benot Jones, A Bluffer's Guide to Stability (Part 1 to 3), Tunnelling Journal Magazine (Feb to Jun '14).
[3] Davis, E. H., Gunn, M. J., Mair, R. J. & Seneviratne, H. N. (1980) The stability of shallow tunnels and
underground openings in cohesive material. Gotechnique. Vol. 30, No. 4, pp. 397-416.
[4] Kimura, T. & Mair, R. J. (1981) Centrifuge testing of model tunnels in soft clay. Proceedings of the
12th Int. Conf. of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Stockholm. Vol. 2, pp. 319-332.