Soft ground tunnelling course

By Dr Alun Thomas

July 21 1/57 All2Plan Consulting ApS

© A Thomas CVR nr: 40155082
Soft ground tunnelling course

Table of Contents
1 Module 1 General design ...........................................................................................5
1.1 Introduction 5
1.2 What is a design? 5
1.3 Design process 7
1.4 Design tools 7
1.4.1 Design codes & standards .............................................................................................................. 8
1.5 Design concepts 8
1.5.1 Stand-up time ................................................................................................................................... 8
1.5.2 Arching ............................................................................................................................................. 9
1.5.3 Soil-structure interaction ................................................................................................................ 9
1.5.4 A four dimensional problem ......................................................................................................... 10
1.5.5 Mechanisms of behaviour ............................................................................................................. 10
1.6 Safety & Risk Management 10
1.7 Durability 11
1.8 Waterproofing 11
1.9 Specifications 11
1.10 Contractual issues 12
1.10.1 Control ............................................................................................................................................ 12
1.10.2 Cost ................................................................................................................................................. 12
1.10.3 Time................................................................................................................................................. 13
1.10.4 Disputes .......................................................................................................................................... 13
1.11 Conclusions 13
1.12 Exercises 15
1.12.1 Design basis ................................................................................................................................... 15
1.12.2 Design the general layout for the MIP connection ..................................................................... 15

2 Module 2 The ground & Soil-structure interaction ....................................................16

2.1 Introduction 16
2.2 Mechanisms of ground behaviour 16
2.2.1 Stress-strength ratio...................................................................................................................... 16
2.2.2 Cohesion......................................................................................................................................... 17
2.2.3 Groundwater................................................................................................................................... 17
2.2.4 Permeability ................................................................................................................................... 18
2.3 Ground treatment 18
2.4 Ground investigations 18
2.4.1 General ........................................................................................................................................... 18

July 21 2/57 All2Plan Consulting ApS

© A Thomas CVR nr: 40155082
Soft ground tunnelling course
2.4.2 Geophysics .................................................................................................................................... 19
2.5 Ground properties in design 19
2.5.1 Stiffness .......................................................................................................................................... 20
2.5.2 Strength .......................................................................................................................................... 20
2.5.3 Insitu stress .................................................................................................................................... 20
2.5.4 Groundwater................................................................................................................................... 21
2.6 Face stability 21
2.7 Settlement 22
2.8 Monitoring & instrumentation 23
2.9 Exercises 24
2.9.1 Risk assessment ............................................................................................................................ 24
2.9.2 Face stability .................................................................................................................................. 24

3 Module 3 Construction methods ...............................................................................25

3.1 Introduction 25
3.2 Excavation methods 25
3.3 Logistics 25
3.4 Cut & cover tunnels 26
3.5 TBMs & segmental linings 26
3.5.1 TBMs ............................................................................................................................................... 26
3.5.2 Segmental linings .......................................................................................................................... 27
3.5.3 Pipejacked tunnels ........................................................................................................................ 27
3.6 Other methods 27
3.6.1 Hand excavation ............................................................................................................................ 28
3.6.2 Ribs and lagging ............................................................................................................................ 28
3.6.3 Steel liner plates ............................................................................................................................ 28
3.6.4 Jacked boxes ................................................................................................................................. 28
3.6.5 Slot cutting ..................................................................................................................................... 29
3.7 Immersed tube tunnels 29
3.8 SCL / NATM 29
3.9 Shafts 31
3.10 Groundwater control 31
3.10.1 Dewatering...................................................................................................................................... 31
3.10.2 Grouting .......................................................................................................................................... 31
3.10.3 Compressed air .............................................................................................................................. 32
3.10.4 Ground freezing ............................................................................................................................. 32
3.11 Exercises 33
3.11.1 Construction method..................................................................................................................... 33
3.11.2 Risk assessment ............................................................................................................................ 33

4 Module 4 Design methods ........................................................................................34

July 21 3/57 All2Plan Consulting ApS

© A Thomas CVR nr: 40155082
Soft ground tunnelling course
4.1 Introduction 34
4.2 Fundamentals 34
4.3 Design tools 34
4.3.1 Empirical design tools................................................................................................................... 34
4.3.2 Analytical design tools .................................................................................................................. 34
4.3.3 Bedded beam models .................................................................................................................... 37
4.3.4 Numerical modelling...................................................................................................................... 37
4.4 Special structures 39
4.4.1 Junctions ........................................................................................................................................ 39
4.4.2 Shafts .............................................................................................................................................. 40
4.4.3 Portals ............................................................................................................................................. 40
4.5 Sustainability 41
4.5.1 Environmental impact & sustainability ........................................................................................ 41
4.5.2 Carbon footprint calculations ....................................................................................................... 41
4.6 Special design load cases 43
4.6.1 Floatation ........................................................................................................................................ 43
4.6.2 Fire .................................................................................................................................................. 43
4.6.3 Seismic loading ............................................................................................................................. 44
4.7 Exercises 45
4.7.1 Lining design - dimensions .......................................................................................................... 45
4.7.2 Lining design – trigger values ...................................................................................................... 45

5 Module 5 Sprayed concrete lined (SCL) tunnels ......................................................46

5.1 Introduction 46
5.2 Lining options 46
5.2.1 Double Shell Lining (DSL) ............................................................................................................. 48
5.2.2 “Grey rock” .................................................................................................................................... 49
5.2.3 Permanent sprayed concrete linings (PSCL) .............................................................................. 49
5.3 Numerical models 50
5.3.1 Material behaviour of the ground ................................................................................................. 50
5.3.2 Construction sequencing.............................................................................................................. 50
5.3.3 Material behaviour of sprayed concrete ...................................................................................... 51
5.3.4 2D vs 3D .......................................................................................................................................... 52
5.3.5 Calibration ...................................................................................................................................... 52
5.3.6 Interpretation .................................................................................................................................. 52
5.4 Design standards 52
5.5 Specifications 53
5.6 Summary 55
6 Acknowledgements ..................................................................................................56
7 Reading list & references .........................................................................................56

July 21 4/57 All2Plan Consulting ApS

© A Thomas CVR nr: 40155082
Soft ground tunnelling course
2 Module 2 The ground & Soil-structure interaction

2.1 Introduction

This course covers soft ground which is defined as weak geomaterial which behaves as a
continuum, i.e. it deforms like one continuous mass. Due to the moderate to high stress/strength
ratio, the ground near the tunnel often deforms plastically too. Support is required quickly to
prevent sands from flowing, weak rock from ravelling or deformation in the ground that could lead
to a general softening. Examples of soft ground include sands and clays but it can also include
highly fractured rock masses under high stress since they exhibit this type of behaviour. This
course does not cover blocky rock (which functions more as a continuum) or hard rock, since both
require quite different forms of excavation and support.

This is a loose definition without precise boundaries but it is helpful to draw a distinction between
types of ground which behave differently since the mechanisms of behaviour are a critical input to
the design and choice of construction methods.

The ground presents the greatest source of risk on a tunnelling project so this module will first
examine the mechanisms of behaviour, then ground investigation techniques to identify and
quantify these behaviours. Face stability and settlement will be discussed with monitoring and
instrumentation covered at the end of the module.

2.2 Mechanisms of ground behaviour

This has already been discussed briefly in section 1.5.5. Since the whole design is founded on this,
it is worth expanding on this here.

2.2.1 Stress-strength ratio

This crude metric is defined as the insitu ground stress divided by the unconfined compressive
strength (UCS) of the ground. This indicates how close the ground is to failure. However, from a
theoretical point of view, it is more accurate to consider the ground stresses relative to a relevant
failure criterion, such as the shear stress vs the shear strength since in most cases the ground fails
in shear rather than tension (or even less likely compression). Nevertheless this simple ratio is a
helpful pointer both for soils and weak rocks. For example, the ratio of mean stress and strength
has been used as a guide for squeezing potential (Hoek & Marinos 2000).

If the stresses are low in comparison to a measure of strength (i.e. < 1.0), such as UCS or
undrained shear strength, then the tunnel would be expected to be quite stable and the ground will
behave elastically.

If the stresses are higher than the strength (i.e. > 1.0), some form of plastic yielding is likely. This
increases as the ratio increases. When the ratio exceeds 5.0, very severe squeezing can be expected
(Hoek & Marinos 2000). In more moderate cases, the implication of this is that the stand-up time
will be limited and support will be needed quickly. The consequences for support are obvious and
are described in more detail in the presentation.

July 21 16/57 All2Plan Consulting ApS

© A Thomas CVR nr: 40155082
Soft ground tunnelling course

2.2.2 Cohesion

Cohesion is a simple strength parameter to measure. In the Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion, it is

defined as the intercept of the shear stress axis at zero average stress. If a geomaterial has zero or
very little cohesion, it is unable to hold itself together in an unconfined state (such as at the edge of
an excavation). Cohesionless sand is one obvious example. The consequence of this for us as
tunnellers is that the ground will fall apart and flow or ravel. Hence immediate support is needed
to hold it in place, even pre-support such as spiles or alternatively ground treatment.

2.2.3 Groundwater

The first question is: is there any water present? If yes, what form is it in? transient or permanent?
The presence of water affects a tunnel in a number of direct and indirect ways.

Firstly, if the ground is not impermeable, the water pressure will act as a load on the lining and
some form of waterproofing will be required.

Secondly, the water will affect the strength of the ground. Water weakens the ground and so the
ground loads will tend to increase.

Figure 3 Range of application for different types of waterproofing

In a more immediate and direct sense, any water flowing into the excavation will have to be
managed - see section 3.10.

July 21 17/57 All2Plan Consulting ApS

© A Thomas CVR nr: 40155082
Soft ground tunnelling course
Understanding the groundwater regime – the form of groundwater, its pressure and the
permeability - informs the decisions on the waterproofing – see Figure 3. The groundwater
chemistry also affects subjects such as durability of the lining.

2.2.4 Permeability

Arguably this could be included as a subset of the Groundwater parameter since it is only relevant
when ground water is present. However, permeability has both indirect influences so it deserves to
be considered carefully in its own right.

The direct influence can be seen during excavation. The permeability will define how much water
flows into the tunnel and therefore what countermeasures are needed – ranging from something
simple like pumps to more complex ones like closed face TBMs – see section 3.10.

Indirectly, in certain geomaterials – such as clays – the low permeability leads to a distinctly
different behaviour of the ground with an initial undrained response in which negative pore
pressures can help to withstand the changes in stress in the ground, following by a gradual re-
establishment of the pore pressures, with a corresponding increase in ground loads. In the short
term case the phenomenon increases stability at the tunnel face. In the longer term, consolidation
can lead to substantial additional ground movements but these tend to flatten settlement curves
while widening their extent at the same time. London clay is the most well-known geomaterial to
exhibit this – and this behaviour is one of the reasons that the first tunnelled metro in the world
was built in London. However, this can be relevant to any clayey geomaterial.

2.3 Ground treatment

There are many ways in which the properties of the ground can be improved. For example, jet
grouting and permeating grouting have been used on many occasions to facilitate tunnelling in soft
ground. This is a specialist subject which is beyond the scope of this course.There are some slides
in the presentation showing which types of grouts are available for permeation grouting.

Ground treatment for water control is discussed in section 3.10.

2.4 Ground investigations

2.4.1 General

This section focuses on the geotechnical investigation (GI) which along with other items such as
environmental monitoring, building condition surveys and topographic surveys forms part of the
site investigation. The GI runs through several phases, becoming progressively more detailed and
focussed within a narrower area as the project develops. This is an extremely important source of
information for the design and construction since the ground represents the single biggest source
of risk on any tunnelling project. Ideally 1% of the project budget should be spent on the GI. This
is subject is covered extensively elsewhere so the comments here will be restricted to some key
general points, along with some comments about geophysics.

July 21 18/57 All2Plan Consulting ApS

© A Thomas CVR nr: 40155082
Soft ground tunnelling course
Having established the stratigraphy (the so-called “ground model”) and the best corridor for the
tunnel alignment, the GI should be focussed on the major geotechnical risks or on information
required for design calculations or tendering. Reducing the budget for the GI or pushing it
forwards onto the contractors in a Design & Build contract are flawed tactics. Both rob the design
team (and tenderers) of valuable information at key points in the design and increase the
uncertainty in the project.

BIM and GIS tools offer excellent ways to present geotechnical data and to gather information, all
the way through the project so that when it is completed a ground model can be handed over as
part of the “as-built” information.

Finally, during tendering the geotechnical information should be shared with all tenderers in the
form of a Geotechnical Baseline Report (GBR), together with a Geotechnical Data Report (GDR)
– ASCE 2007. In contractual terms, the GBR describes, the subsurface conditions anticipated to be
encountered during the construction process, and which party carries the risks associated with the
anticipated conditions. The baseline creates much more transparency in the bidding and
construction phases. It simplifies the assessment of claims for unforeseen ground conditions as
well as helping to ensure greater consistency in the assessment of the ground during bidding. The
GDR contains the data, while the GBR contains the interpretation of this data.

2.4.2 Geophysics

Most engineers are familiar with conventional GI techniques such as boreholes and standard
characterization tests on samples from them so these will not be discussed further here. Typically
these are “spot sampling” techniques and alongside the specific limitations of each method, there
is the fundamental limitation that they gives us some information in one specific place within a
heterogeneous medium. The ground conditions a short distance from that spot may be quite
different.

Geophysics on the other hand opens the possibility to get a more general picture of the ground
conditions, albeit at the expense of less precise information on the ground’s properties.
Technology in this field has developed rapidly and it can be used both on land and offshore.
Geophysics can provide information on stratigraphy, especially where there are sharp differences
in the strata (such as at the rockhead), and faulting, as well as groundwater. The equipment is also
quick to mobilise. Geophysics works best when it is correlated and calibrated with traditional
physical investigation methods.

A combination of the traditional methods and geophysics could offer many benefits to tunnelling
projects.

2.5 Ground properties in design

A few comments with be included here to highlight issues that are peculiar to tunnelling.
Otherwise this subject follows the normal path of any design for a structure in the ground. This
section focuses on parameters which are used in design calculations (such as stiffness and
strength), rather than ones used to characterize the ground in a general geotechnical sense (e.g.
plasticity index or grading curve). The testing planned in the GI should gather all the parameters

July 21 19/57 All2Plan Consulting ApS

© A Thomas CVR nr: 40155082
Soft ground tunnelling course
that will be needed later in the design. This includes information needed for the durability design
such as groundwater chemistry.

Finally, as discussed in section 5.4, in the terms of Eurocode 7, it is best to use Moderately
Conservative values of geotechnical parameters and then factor the results from a calculation
rather than downgrading the input geotechnical parameters. This is because downgrading the input
parameters can change the whole pattern of the ground response.

2.5.1 Stiffness

The most basic input is the elastic modulus of the ground and the companion parameter, Poisson’s
ratio. While a design basis may often state single values for these parameters, in reality many
geomaterials exhibit nonlinear elastic behaviour. Depending on the case in question, this may be
relevant. Ignoring the high stiffnesses at small strains usually does not affect the predicted loads on
the tunnel lining much as this is governed by the stiffness at higher strains (and plasticity) but this
aspect of the elastic behaviour is significant in the prediction of ground movements and their
impact on adjacent structures (Thomas 2003).

2.5.2 Strength

Because of their relatively low strength compared to the stress, plasticity often occurs around
tunnels on soft ground. A thorough understanding of the strength is required and how best to
model this in the calculations, along with the insitu stresses of course. Features to consider
include: drained vs undrained strengths; frictional & cohesive components of strength; mass values
vs small scale samples; strain softening vs hardening behaviour (peak vs residual strengths).

2.5.3 Insitu stress

The insitu stresses are difficult to measure, most often the horizontal stresses, and hence this
subject is often debated heavily. The choice of insitu stress can have a very large influence on the
predicted loads in a tunnel lining, particularly when using simpler calculation methods. Geological
history and tectonics are the main determinants of the insitu stress regime. Overconsolidation, for
example, can lock in horizontal stresses which end up higher than the current vertical stress.
However, tunnels built in this sort of strata usually squat (i.e. the crown moves down more than
the sides move inwards), rather than ovalise. To overcome this in simple 2D numerical models, the
area around the tunnel is modelled with a horizontal to vertical stress ratio of less than 1.0. one
should recognise that this is a modelling “trick”, rather than pretending that Jaky’s formula applies
to an overconsolidated stratum – which would be nonsense from a geotechnical point of view.

Figure 4 shows how plasticity zones will develop around a tunnel, depending on the depth and the
K0 value. This understanding of likely behaviour is useful when assessing how well complicated
design calculations such as numerical models are performing.

July 21 20/57 All2Plan Consulting ApS

© A Thomas CVR nr: 40155082
Soft ground tunnelling course

Figure 4 Plasticity zones depending on K0 (Lee & Rowe 1989)

2.5.4 Groundwater

This is discussed in more detail in sections 2.2.3 and 2.2.4. The most important aspect to consider
here is whether or not the ground is behaving as in an undrained or drained fashion at the point in
question in the design. The properties of geomaterials such as strength and stiffness differ
depending on this. The assessment of water inflows or the direct load from the water pressure are
simpler tasks.

2.6 Face stability

The local stability of the ground at the face governs the size of the faces in each heading. This,
combined with the overall stability of the heading (if it is not a complete structural ring) informs
the design of the excavation sequence, along with the space requirements for the preferred
excavation equipment.

Various analytical tools can be used to help estimate this, e.g.: N – stability number (or “overload
factor”) for cohesive materials (Mair 1993) and Leca & Dormieux (1990) for cohesionless ground
– see also ITA 2006. While these are very useful and generally lie on the conservative side (since
some of them based on lower bound analytical solutions), there are several limitations to be wary
of, notably:

July 21 21/57 All2Plan Consulting ApS

© A Thomas CVR nr: 40155082
Soft ground tunnelling course

• Valid for circular tunnels

• Assume homogeneous ground conditions

The stability number increases with increasing cover/depth ratio and with reducing distance from
the face to the support. This can be extended for the case when there is compressed air in the
tunnel. The upper bound solutions proposed by Leca & Dormieux (1990) require a little more
careful consideration as the equations change depending on whether or not the conical wedges
intersect the ground surface.

Face stability for TBMs is beyond the scope of this course but there are several well-established
analytical solutions for these cases – such Anagnostou & Kovari (1996).

2.7 Settlement

Since many soft ground tunnels are shallow ones in urban environments, settlement features
prominently in the design. Based on the predicted settlement contours, an assessment can be made
of which buildings will be affected by the tunnelling and how much they will be affected. This can
have a significant cost impact on a project so settlement analyses should be realistic but not overly
optimistic either. Fortunately there are some simple yet surprisingly reliable ways to estimate
settlement.

BTS (2004) and ITA (2006) provide overviews of this subject and explain in detail the empirical
method, proposed in detail by O’Reilly and New in 1982, based on the assumption of an inverted
Gaussian distribution, first proposed by Schmidt in 1969.

The settlement curve is defined by two parameters – the Volume Loss (which is a measure of how
much extra material is excavated during tunnelling – assuming zero dilation in the ground) and the
K factor (which defines the width of the settlement trough). The formulae are outlined in the
presentation. It is notable that this empirical method does not include any geotechnical parameter
that can be measured from a test insitu or in the laboratory. Nevertheless it has been proven to be
very reliable (for both horizontal and vertical displacements) and it can be extended to subsurface
movements too. Typically the Volume Loss for a well-constructed tunnel will be around 1.0% but
it may be as low as 0.5%, especially if closed face TBMs are used. Higher values may be assumed
during settlement predictions in order to give a conservative assessment of the extent of tunnelling
impact.

Settlement assessments tend to follow a path of progressively more detailed and sophisticated
analyses as the design progresses. BTS (2004) explains the three stage assessment process which
is commonly used, along with how to translate the outputs of settlement predictions into
assessments of the impact on buildings.

There are a number of ways to reduce the ground movements induced by tunnelling. Similarly
there are a variety of methods to mitigate the effects of settlement where they might cause damage
to adjacent structures. One of these is compensation grouting. While this can be highly effective, it
is important to remember that compensation grouting can impose significant loads on tunnels and
negatively affect face stability when used close to open tunnel faces (Thomas 2019a).

July 21 22/57 All2Plan Consulting ApS

© A Thomas CVR nr: 40155082
Soft ground tunnelling course
2.8 Monitoring & instrumentation

Instrumentation is installed in and around a soft ground tunnel to monitor its behaviour. For soft
ground tunnels with a robust, fully engineered design, the monitoring is to verify that the tunnels
are behaving as predicted rather than to determine the support required. This is because there is not
enough time to respond to changes in ground behaviour to prevent the ground becoming unstable.

Design changes may still be made but in general these are within the boundaries of the original
design. For example, advance lengths could be varied or optional additional support measures such
as spiling used or omitted but the thickness of the lining and its reinforcement are not normally
altered. The competence of the site team is critical to the success of construction and it is useful to
have a designer’s representative on site.

The normal hierarchy of monitoring is: in-tunnel convergence; surface settlement; subsurface
instruments (e.g.: inclinometers, extensometers, piezometers); in-tunnel stress / strain
measurements. In other words, most weight is placed on the measurements of lining deformations,
then surface movements. A recent innovation is the use of software which estimates lining strains
or stresses from lining deformations. While interesting, it should be noted that these calculations
have not been calibrated against actual measurements of lining strains or stresses.

A system of trigger values is used to assess the performance of the tunnel. Typically there are 3
trigger values – a green, amber and red limit. The green limit marks the boundary of normal
behaviour. The amber marks the boundary of serviceability while the red trigger should be set
below the ultimate capacity of the lining. Thomas 2019a offers a detailed method for setting these
trigger values. The contractor’s method statement should include pre-planned contingency
measures that can be taken if a trigger value is exceeded – see also Thomas 2019a.

An important lesson from the high-profile tunnel collapse at Heathrow Airport in 1994 was that
the procedures for handling and reviewing monitoring data need to be clear, comprehensive and
robust (HSE 1998). At the heart of this sit Daily Review Meetings. These meetings must include
all relevant parties and consider all relevant information. For example, quality control information
such as concrete strength or TBM grouting records are as important as settlement monitoring. In
recent years, there has been a massive increase in the ability to gather monitoring data – for
example, via automatic total stations and other electronic sensors. This presents a real danger of
information overload. The construction management team needs to vigilant against this so that any
adverse trends or movements can be identified quickly and steps taken to resolve them.

July 21 23/57 All2Plan Consulting ApS

© A Thomas CVR nr: 40155082
Soft ground tunnelling course

2.9 Exercises

2.9.1 Risk assessment

List the top 10 hazards associated with the MIP project and make an initial assessment of them –
assuming no mitigation measures.

Hint: think of things that could go wrong, what would the consequence be if it happened and how
likely is it to happen.

2.9.2 Face stability

Calculate the face stability of the cross-passage.

Hint: is this cohesive or cohesionless material?

July 21 24/57 All2Plan Consulting ApS

© A Thomas CVR nr: 40155082
Soft ground tunnelling course
6 Acknowledgements

I have enjoyed the privilege of working with and learning from some of the best tunnellers in the
world. The content of this course is the fruit of that collaboration and my passion for tunnelling. I
would like to acknowledge the contributions of all those engineers to my own knowledge.

This course can only hope to scratch the surface of the topics above. Nevertheless I hope that you
will all find this a useful step on your own journey.

7 Reading list & references

The following list contains documents which have been referred to in these notes and some
suggested further reading.

ACI 506.2-13 (2018) “Specification for Shotcrete”, American Concrete Institute

ACI 506R-16 (2016), 'Guide to shotcrete', American Concrete Institute, ISBN: 978-1- 942727-95-8.
Anagnostou, G. & Kovari, K., (1996) “Face stability in slurry and EPB shield tunnelling”, Geotechnical Aspects of
Underground Construction in Soft Ground, Mair & Taylor (eds), Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 453 - 458.
ASCE (1984) “Guidelines for Tunnel Lining Design”, ed. T.D. O’Rourke, ASCE, New York.
ASCE (2007) “Geotechnical Baseline Reports for Construction: Suggested Guidelines”, Technical Committee on
Geotechnical Reports of the Underground Technology Research Council, ISBN (print): 978-0-7844-0930-5.
Bernard, E.S. & Thomas, A.H. (2020) “Fibre reinforced sprayed concrete for ground support”, Tunnelling and
Underground Space Technology, Volume 99, May 2020, 103302, 2020.
BTS (2004) “Tunnel lining: design guide”, British Tunnelling Society, Thomas Telford, London.
BTS (2010) “Specification for tunnelling: Third Edition”, British Tunnelling Society, Thomas Telford, London.
Carranza-Torres, C. and Fairhurst, C. (2000). Analysis of tunnel support requirements using the convergence-
confinement method and the Hoek-Brown rock. failure criterion, GeoEng 2000.
Curtis, D.J. (1974) “Visco Elastic tunnel analysis”, Tunnels & Tunnelling, November 1974, pp 38 – 39.
Curtis, D.J. (1976) Discussion on Muir Wood (1975), Geotechnique, Vol. 26, No. 1, pp 231 – 237.
Duddeck, H. & Erdmann, J. (1985) “On structural design models for tunnels in soft soil”, Underground Space, Vol. 9,
pp 246 – 259.
Einstein, H.H. & Schwartz, C.W. (1979) “ Simplified analysis for tunnel supports”, J. Geotech. Engng. Div., ASCE, pp
499 – 517.
Eisenstein, Z. & Branco, P. (1991) “Convergence-Confinement Method in Shallow Tunnels”, Tunnelling and
Underground Space Technology, Vol. 6, Issue 3, pp 343 – 346.
EFNARC (1999), 'Execution of spraying', revised version of Section 8, ISBN 0 9522483 7 9 http://www.efnarc.org/pdf/
ExecofSpraying.PDF
EFNARC (2002), 'European Specification for sprayed concrete – Checklist for Specifiers and Contractors', ISBN 0
9539733 5 2 http://www.efnarc.org/pdf/Checklist02.PDF
EN 14487-1 (2006) 'Sprayed concrete. Definitions, specifications and conformity', British Standards Institute, ISBN:
0580474267
EN 14487-2 (2006) 'Sprayed concrete. Execution', British Standards Institute, ISBN: 058049537
Hashash, Y.M.A., Hook, J.J., Schmidt, B., Yao, J.I.C., 2001. Seismic design and analysis of underground structures.
Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 16, 247–293.
Hoek, E. & Brown, E.T. (1980) “Underground excavations in rock”, IMMG, London.
Hoek, E. & Marinos, P. (2000) “Deformation:estimating rock mass strength”, Tunnels & Tunnelling International,
November 2000, pp 45 –51.
HSE (1996) “Safety of New Austrian Tunnelling Method (NATM) Tunnels”, Health & Safety Executive, HMSO, Norwich.
HSE (2000) “The collapse of NATM tunnels at Heathrow Airport”, HSE Books, HMSO, Norwich.
ICE (1996) “Sprayed Concrete Linings (NATM) for tunnels in soft ground”, Institution of Civil Engineers design and
practice guides, Thomas Telford, London.
ITA (2004) “Guidelines for Structural Fire Resistance for Road Tunnels”, Report of Working Group 6 Maintenance and
Repair, www.ita-aites.org.
ITA (2011) “Safe working in tunnelling”, WG5, www.ita-aites.org.
ITA WG2 (2006) “Settlements induced by tunneling in Soft Ground”, Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology
22 (2007) pp 119–149.
ITA WG12 & ITAtech (2020) “Permanent Sprayed Concrete Linings”, ITA report no. 24, Authors: (W. Aldrian, A.H.
Thomas & K-G. Holter) , 2020. ISBN 978-2-9701242-6-9.

July 21 56/57 All2Plan Consulting ApS

© A Thomas CVR nr: 40155082
Soft ground tunnelling course
Leca, E. & Dormieux, L. (1990) "Face stability of tunnels in frictional soils", Geotechnique 40, No. 4, pp 581 – 606.
Mair, R.J. (1993) “Unwin Memorial Lecture 1992: Developments in geotechnical engineering research: application to
tunnels and deep excavations”, Proc. Instn. Civ. Engrs. Civ. Engng. 1993, 93, Feb, pp 27 – 41.
OBV (2013), Sprayed Concrete Guideline, Edition April 2013, Österreichische Bautechnik Vereinigung
Oreste, P. (2009) “The Convergence-Confinement Method: Roles and Limits in Modern Geomechanical Tunnel
Design”, American Journal of Applied Sciences, Volume 6 No. 4, 2009, pp 757-771.
Panet, M. & Guenot, A. (1982) “Analysis of convergence behind the face of a tunnel”, Tunnelling ’82, IMMG, pp 197 –
204.
Thomas, A.H. (2003) “The numerical modelling of sprayed concrete tunnel linings”, PhD Thesis, University of
Southampton.
Thomas, A.H. & Dimmock, R. (2018) “The design philosophy for permanent sprayed concrete linings”, Sprayed
Concrete Symposium 2018, Trondheim
Thomas, A.H. (2019a) “Sprayed concrete lined tunnels”. Boca Raton, USA : CRC Press, 2019. ISBN: 9780367209759.
Thomas, A.H. (2019b) “Achieving sustainability in underground construction through innovation” Proceedings of the
Institution of Civil Engineers – Civil Engineering, https://doi.org/10.1680/jcien.19.00018
Wong, R. C. K. & Kaiser, P. F. (1988) “Design and performance evaluation of vertical shafts: rational shaft design
method and verification of design method”, Canadian Geotechnical Journal 25, pp 320 – 337.

July 21 57/57 All2Plan Consulting ApS

© A Thomas CVR nr: 40155082