Carranza-Torres, C., T. Reich, and D. Saftner (2013).

Stability of shallow
circular tunnels in soils using analytical and numerical models. In Proceedings of the 61st Minnesota Annual Geotechnical Engineering Conference.
University of Minnesota, St. Paul Campus. February 22, 2013.

Stability of shallow circular tunnels in soils using analytical

and numerical models
C. Carranza-Torres, T. Reich & D. Saftner
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Minnesota, Duluth Campus, Minnesota, USA

ABSTRACT: This paper revisits a classical problem of geotechnical engineering involving the
stability of shallow circular tunnels excavated in frictional cohesive materials. The problem is of
practical interest since, among others, it allows establishing conditions of stability for the front
of tunnels in soils excavated manually or using mechanized methods. A historical background of
computational methods developed to establish the stability conditions of shallow cavities in soils
is presented first. In particular, analytical models based on lower and upper bound theories of
plasticity are discussed. Thereafter a classical lower bound model due to Caquot is analyzed and
extended to account for the presence of a surface surcharge and water in the soil being excavated.
This model is proposed as a means of getting a first estimate of the stability conditions of shallow
tunnels under various hydraulic conditions, using a closed-form solution. The concept of factor of
safety, traditionally used in the assessment of stability of slopes in frictional cohesive materials,
is also included in the model. Results obtained with the extended Caquots model are shown to
be in accordance with those obtained with more sophisticated finite element and finite difference
methods. A computer spreadsheet including the implementation of Caquots extended solution is
also provided in the paper.

1 INTRODUCTION
The stability of shallow circular cavities excavated in soils is an important topic of practical significance in geotechnical engineering. The problem is relevant for design of buried pipes, sewer
and transportation tunnels. In the case of tunnels excavated using mechanized methods, such as
the Earth Pressure Balance (or EPB) method and the Slurry Shield method, the problem is that of
determining the minimum pressure to be applied at the front of the tunnel to avoid formation of a
cave at the front (see, for example, Guglielmetti, Grasso, Mahtab & Xu 2008).
Impressive collapses of shallow tunnels excavated in soils with manual or mechanical methods,
have occurred in the past due to inadequate support considered for the openings or other unforeseen
conditions in the ground. For example, Figure 1a shows a bus swallowed into a sinkhole formed
by the collapse of a tunnel front during construction of the Munich Metro in 1994 (Construction
Today, 1994a, 1994b). Figure 1b shows another collapse that occurred due to failure of tunnel
support below Hollywood Boulevard in Los Angeles, during construction of the metro in 1995
(Civil Engineer International 1995; Oliver 1995). Figure 1c shows another collapse that occurred
during construction of the underground Mass Rapid System in Singapore in 2005 (Government of
Singapore 2005).

Figure 1. a) Collapse during construction of the Munich Metro (after Construction Today, 1994a). b) Collapse during construction of the LA Metro (after Civil Engineer International, 1995). c) Collapse during
construction of the Singapore underground Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) system (after Government of Singapore, 2005).

Economic yet safe and flexible designs of tunnel supports can be achieved with better understanding of the relationships that govern the stability of shallow tunnels, especially the relationship
between support pressure, soil cover above the tunnel, size of the tunnel and the mechanical strength
of the ground hosting the tunnel. Such understanding could be gained by availability of simple analytical relationships that allow examination of the dependence of variables involved in the problem.
Perhaps more important, these analytical relationships can allow implementation of probabilistic
analyses for computing probability of failure (and therefore reliability of designs) for tunnel fronts
and sections, as it is current practice for other geotechnical structures, such as natural and man-made
slopes (including embankments).
The following sections discuss analytical and numerical methods developed to analyze stability of
shallow tunnels and propose an extended form of an analytical solution known as Caquots solution
as a means of quickly establishing stability conditions for tunnel sections and tunnel fronts under
different conditions of loading and presence of water in the ground.

2 STABILITY MODELS FOR SHALLOW TUNNELS

In his book Theoretical Soil Mechanics, Terzaghi (1943) presented one of the first models for
computing the stability of sections of shallow tunnels excavated in soils, based on the principle of
soil arching. This model, which is shown in Figure 2a, is based on the condition that a mass of soil
extending laterally and above the tunnel is in a state of limit equilibrium. A method for computing
support requirements for tunnels in both soils and rock (and both, shallow and deep tunnels) was
later developed from the original Terzaghis model. This became to be known as the Terzaghis
Rock Load method (Proctor & White 1946) see Figure 2b. Terzaghis models, which will be
discussed in more detail in the next section of this paper, became popular methods for designing
tunnel supports in the US, after their introduction.

Figure 2. a) Limit equilibrium model proposed by Terzaghi (after Terzaghi, 1943). b) Terzaghis Rock Load
Method for designing tunnel support (after Proctor and T.L. White, 1946).

Other limit equilibrium models for shallow tunnels based on the original Terzaghis model (Figure
2a) have also been proposed for assessing the stability of tunnel fronts i.e., the vertical plane that
remains unsupported as a tunnel is advanced and support is installed behind it. Figure 3a shows
such a limit equilibrium model for the front of an unsupported tunnel as proposed by Horn (1961).
Figure 3b shows another model due to Tamez et al. (1997), as reported by Cornejo (1989) (see also
Tanzini 2001), which accounted for tunnel support behind the face. Also, Anagnostou & Kovari
(1996) used as a basis the model by Horn (1961) to account for the negative effect of seepage forces
at the front, in particular reference to excavation using EPB and Slurry Shield excavation methods.
Besides the limit equilibrium methods mentioned above, there exists another group of analytical
methods for assessing the stability of shallow tunnels. This group is based on the construction of
statically and kinematically admissible solutions to take advantage of what are known the lower
and upper bound theorems of plasticity see, for example, Salenon (1977); Lancellotta (1993);
Davis & Selvadurai (2002).
The lower bound theorem of plasticity states that a statically admissible solution (a solution that
does not violate the equilibrium conditions nor the yield condition of the material) is a lower bound
and therefore gives a safeestimate of the loads required to stabilize an excavation. Thus, a statically
admissible solution provides a conservative estimate of the internal support pressure required for
stability. On the other hand, the upper bound theorem of plasticity states that a kinematically

Figure 3. Limit equilibrium models for analyzing the stability of tunnel fronts for a) unsupported tunnel
(after Horn, 1961); and b) supported tunnel (as reported in Cornejo, 1989).

admissible solution, a solution in which compatibility of displacements between regions (e.g.,

blocks) of material during failure is not violated, is an upper bound and therefore gives an unsafe
estimate of the loads required to stabilize an excavation. Thus, a kinematically admissible solution
provides a non-conservative estimate of the internal support pressure required for stability. Because
of the safe nature of the values of support pressure derived from statically admissible solutions,
these types of solutions have been predominantly used in the estimation of stability of shallow
tunnels.
Caquot (Caquot 1934; Caquot & Kerisel 1949) presented one of the first statically admissible
solutions for analyzing the stability of shallow tunnels. Caquots model, which is represented in
Figure 4a, relies on integration of the force equilibrium equations in a circular zone surrounding
a circular tunnel, using the condition that the soil reaches the yield state on the crown of the
tunnel, along the segment AB represented in Figure 4a. dEscatha & Mandel (1974) and Mandel
et al. (1974), presented statically admissible solutions for both cylindrical and spherical cavities
for various configurations of internal pressure by integrating the hyperbolic equilibrium equations
that satisfy the material yield condition, along the associated characteristic lines see Figure 4b.
Both Caquots model and dEscatha & Mandel models represented in Figure 4 allow determination
of a lower bound (i.e., safe) value of support pressure required for equilibrium of the cavity.
Atkinson & Potts (1977), Davis et al. (1980) and Muhlhaus (1985) presented statically and kinematically admissible solutions for shallow circular cavities under different loading configurations
(surcharge at the ground surface and internal support pressure). As shown in Figure 5, Davis et al.
(1980) and Muhlhaus (1985) were perhaps the first to propose that a statically admissible solution
for a spherical opening, could be used to analyze the stability of the front of a lined tunnel (Figure
5a) or the unsupported span in the vicinity of the tunnel front (Figure 5b), respectively.
Leca & Dormieux (1990) and Chambon & Cort (1994) presented statically and kinematically
admissible solutions for the tunnel front, in particular, with regard to the pressure required at the
front when excavating tunnels using mechanized methods (EPB and Slurry Shield methods). For
the interested reader, Guglielmetti et al. (2008) and ITA/AITES (2007) provide a comprehensive
review of different existing analytical methods for computing stability of tunnel fronts, including
other methods that, for space reasons, are not mentioned in this paper.

Figure 4. Statically admissible solutions proposed by a) Caquot (1934) and b) dEscatha & Mandel (1974).

Figure 5. Statically admissible solutions for spherical cavities by a) Davis et al. (1980) and b) Muhlhaus
(1985) used to analyze stability of the tunnel front and the unsupported region behind the tunnel front,
respectively.

3 NUMERICAL MODELS OF TUNNEL STABILITY

Although lower and upper bound solutions for shallow tunnel problems could be directly computed using finite element methods and other non-linear programming techniques (see for example,
Lyamin & Sloan 2002a and 2002b), the common way for analyzing stability of shallow tunnels is by
repeated application of non-linear finite element or finite difference computations using commercial
software, to obtain, for example, the minimum support pressure required for equilibrium see, for
example, Peila (1994), Vermeer et al. (2002), Fairhurst & Carranza-Torres (2002).
Figure 6 (after Fairhurst & Carranza-Torres 2002) shows application of the software FLAC 3D
(Itasca, Inc. 2012) for determining the minimum support pressure required to maintain stability of a
section of a shallow cylindrical tunnel (under plane strain conditions) excavated in Mohr-Coulomb
material. For the given geometrical and mechanical characteristics of the tunnel (see Figure 6a),
the model is solved repeatedly for decreasing values of support pressure, starting with the value
associated with in-situ stresses prior to excavation. As the internal pressure falls below a critical
value (see triangle pointing upwards in the diagram of Figure 6b), the tunnel collapses (i.e., the code
is not able to find a state of equilibrium for the model anymore) and the critical pressure required
for equilibrium is interpreted to be just above this critical value. Figure 7a through 7d, show the
extent of the plastic region (i.e., the region defined by elements in the model that have reached
the yield state) for the decreasing values of internal pressure represented in the diagram of Figure
6b. The figures show that stability is lost when the plastic region has reached the surface and has
developed well enough above the crown of the tunnel to produce a kinematic mechanism by which
a mass of soil above the crown slides into the tunnel (note the similarity of the development of
plastic regions in Figure 7 and Figure 4).

Figure 6. Computation of minimum internal pressure required for stability of a shallow tunnel using FLAC 3D
after Fairhurst and Carranza-Torres (2002).

Figure 8 summarizes the results obtained with FLAC 3D together with results obtained with the
solutions by Terzaghi, Caquot and dEscatha & Mandel described in the previous section (see Figures
2 and 4, respectively). In Figure 8, the horizontal axis represents the scaled depth of the tunnel (h
is the depth of the tunnel axis and a is the radius of the tunnel) and the vertical axis represents the
scaled critical internal pressure below which the tunnel collapses (ps is the internal pressure and
is the unit weight of the soil). The figure shows that Terzaghis solution overestimates significantly
the support pressure required to maintain equilibrium i.e., Terzaghis solution leads to too safe
or too uneconomical support designs. In contrast, the values of support pressure obtained with

Caquot and dEscatha & Mandel solutions are in better agreement with the FLAC 3D results these
numerical results can be considered to be the closest to the actual solution.
The results in Figure 8 suggests that design of shallow tunnels based on limit equilibrium models,
e.g., Terzaghis models in Figure 2, and their 3D extensions in Figure 3, would lead to significant
overestimation of required support. A statically admissible solution like Caquots solution shall be
expected to give better (more economical) estimation of required support for the shallow tunnel and
thus can be considered to be a reasonable starting point for assessing stability of a shallow tunnel.
In the following sections, the authors describe the application of an extended form of Caquots
solution to the analysis of stability of two-dimensional cylindrical sections of shallow tunnels, and
the application of the three-dimensional spherical version of solution to the analysis of stability of
tunnel fronts.

Figure 7. Sequence of internal pressure reduction in the FLAC 3D model of Figure 6 after Fairhurst and
Carranza-Torres (2002).

4 COMPUTATION OF FACTOR OF SAFETY USING CAQUOTS MODEL

The introduction of a factor of safety (or similar dimensionless value) for characterizing the stability
conditions for shallow underground openings excavated in soils can be a useful in preliminary design

Figure 8. Comparison of required support pressure for shallow tunnels according to Terzaghis solution,
Caquot and dEscatha & Mandel solutions and the numerical FLAC 3D solution after Fairhurst and CarranzaTorres (2002).

of shallow tunnels, particularly at the stage in which support requirements have not been fully defined
e.g., in cases in which the design engineer is interested to quickly assess whether heavy, light or
no support at all would be required for a planned opening.
Indeed, the use of factor of safety evaluations for shallow tunnels can be traced back to the work
by Broms & Bennemark (1967) and Peck (1969) who proposed an overload factor N, defined as
the ratio of surface surcharge plus overburden pressure minus support pressure over the undrained
shear strength of soils. Based on observations, these authors suggested values for the overload factor
N for which shallow excavations would be unstable, potentially unstable or definitely unstable
see Broms & Bennemark (1967) and Peck (1969). It is worth mentioning that in their definition,
these authors disregarded the size of the opening, so their conclusions would have applied to specific
tunnel sizes.
The implementation of a factor of safety definition into any of the statically admissible solutions
discussed in Section 2 is a relatively straight forward procedure. Below, the implementation is
illustrated for the case of Caquots model represented in Figure 4a.
The problem to be analyzed is shown in Figure 9. It involves excavation of a cylindrical tunnel
or a spherical cavity of radius, a, located at a depth, h, below the surface. The material has a unit
weight, , and a shear strength defined by Mohr-Coulomb parameters c and the cohesion and
the internal friction angle, respectively. The distribution of vertical stresses before excavation is
lithostatic (i.e., v = qs + h) and the ratio of horizontal to vertical stresses is assumed to be
unitary (i.e., h = v ). A structural support pressure, ps , (e.g., provided by a liner) is applied at the
crown of the tunnel, while a uniform surcharge, qs , is acting on the ground surface this surcharge
represents, for example, the load transmitted by the foundation of existing buildings to the ground.
For the geometry and loading conditions represented in Figure 9, Caquots solution defines the
value of internal pressure, ps , at the crown of the opening required to maintain the stability of
the excavation i.e., ps is the minimum or critical pressure below which the tunnel collapses.
Appendix A presents a demonstration of the fundamental relationship in Caquots solution to be
used here (a complete derivation of Caquots solution can be found in Caquot 1934 and Caquot &

Figure 9. Extended Caquots model considered in this study as applied to the analysis of stability of cylindrical
and spherical cavities.

Kerisel 1949).
According to Caquots model, the following relationship relates the internal pressure, ps , and the
remaining parameters introduced above (see equation A-14),

 

N
ps
qs
c
h k(N 1)
=
(1)
+2
h
h
h N 1
a
 

 1

N
h k(N 1)
h
1
c



2
a
a
h N 1
k N 1 1
where the parameter k dictates the type of excavation being considered i.e., k = 1 is for a
cylindrical excavation and k = 2 is for a spherical excavation, and the parameter N is the passive
reaction coefficient defined as follows (see, for example, Terzaghi, Peck, & Mesri 1996)



1 + sin
2
= tan
+
(2)
N =
1 sin
4
2
It should be noted that equation (1) is valid only when the given Mohr-Coulomb parameters for
the soil lead to a state of limit equilibrium for the tunnel the situation for which the excavation
is about to collapse. In general, the strength of the material, as defined by the cohesion, c, and the
internal friction angle, , will be larger than the strength associated with the critical equilibrium
state of the tunnel (i.e., the parameters involved in equation 1).
Next the factor of safety, FS, for the shallow tunnel is defined to be the ratio of actual MohrCoulomb parameters and critical Mohr-Coulomb parameters that lead to failure of the tunnel (see
Figure 10), i.e.,
c
tan
FS = cr =
(3)
c
tan cr
The definition of factor of safety given by equation (3) (see also Figure 10) is the very same
definition of factor of safety implemented in the strength reduction technique for computation of
factor of safety for slopes in Mohr-Coulomb materials with non-linear finite element and finite
difference codes (see, for example, Zienkiewicz et al. 1975; Donald & Giam 1988; Dawson et al.
1999; Hammah et al. 2007 and 2008). In the last few years, this technique has become a standard
method for computing stability conditions of surface excavations (typically slopes) and can be found

Figure 10. Scheme of shear strength reduction used to the compute factor of safety (FS) according to Caquots
extended model in the case of Mohr-Coulomb material.

implemented in the most popular commercial numerical codes for analysis of excavations for
example, FLAC (Itasca, Inc. 2011); Phase2 (Rocscience, Inc. 2011); Plaxis (Plaxis, bv 2012).
With the definition of factor of safety given by equation (3), Caquots fundamental relationship
(equation 1) can now be written as follows
ps
h

where NFS is
NFS

    FS 

N
qs
c
h k N 1
=
+2
h
h N 1
a




 k NFS 1
 1
N
h
h
c
1

2


 FS
a
a
h N 1
k N 1 1

1 + sin tan1
=

1 sin tan1

(4)

tan
FS

tan
FS

(5)

Equation (4), which is valid for any given values of Mohr-Coulomb parameters c and , allows
computation of a factor of safety for the case of tunnels in frictional cohesive materials.
When the material is frictionless (i.e., = 0 degrees and therefore N = 1), a series of
singularities appear in equation (4), which can be overcome by application of LHospital rule.
Indeed, for frictionless materials, equation (4) becomes,
ps
qs
=1+

h
h
where

 1
 
cFS
h
h
2 k ln
a
h
a

(6)

c
(7)
FS
and therefore, solving for FS in equations (6) and (7), the factor of safety for the shallow tunnel can
cFS =

be explicitly written as follows  

2 ch k ln ha
FS =
 1
1 + qsh phs ha

(8)

As seen from the equations above, computation of the factor of safety for the general case of
frictional cohesive material requires solving the non-linear equation (4) by means of some numerical
technique. Appendix B in this paper presents a computer spreadsheet and associated programming
code required to compute the factor of safety, FS, from the transcendental equation (4).
5 CONSIDERATION OF WATER PORE-PRESSURE IN CAQUOTS MODEL
When excavating shallow tunnels in soils, and as it is typically the case with other geotechnical
structures like slopes and foundations, water in the ground and water on the face of the excavation
itself can be expected to have an influence in the stability of the opening.
Although the undrained condition for the ground as it applies to saturated clays can be accounted
for readily with equations (6) through (8) in Caquots extended model, for the general case of
permeable soils, as a first approximation to solving the problem, the effect of water can be accounted
for by using Terzaghis effective stress principle. This implies decomposing total stresses in the
ground into effective stresses and water pressure, and computing the strength of the material in
terms of effective stresses only (see, for example, Terzaghi et al. 1996). A comprehensive analysis
of this type for the case of deep tunnels in permeable porous media and various hydraulic conditions
for the tunnel itself (i.e., whether water pressure exists inside the tunnel or not) has been presented
in Carranza-Torres & Zhao (2007). In this section, Caquots model is further extended to consider
water pressure in the ground according to Terzaghis principle and various hydraulic conditions.
The five different cases considered here are listed in Table 1 and represented in Figures 11
through 13. The solution of these different cases can be obtained by applying a similar procedure
as the one in Appendix A, this time decomposing the total (stress) problem into effective and water
pressure components and applying the appropriate stress boundary conditions (which may or may
not include water pressure depending on the case considered) at the crown of the tunnel and on the
ground surface.
Table 1. The five hydraulic conditions considered for Caquots extended model.
Case A. Dry ground see Figure 11.
Case B1. Wet ground. Water level above ground level (WL>GL). Dry tunnel see Figure 12a.
Case B2. Same as above, but with flooded tunnel see Figure 12b.
Case C1. Wet ground. Phreatic level below ground level (PL<GL). Dry tunnel see Figure 13a.
Case C2. Same as Case C1, but with flooded tunnel see Figure 13b.

The extended Caquots solution considering the five hydraulic cases in Table 1 can be written in
the following generalized form,

 


 
FS
N
ps 
qs 
c 
h k(N 1)
=
+2
(9)
h
h
h  N 1
a
 
FS
 1

1
h
h k(N 1)

FS
a
a
k(N 1) 1
 
N
c 
2

h N 1
In equation (9), the Mohr-Coulomb strength parameters c and (or N ) are effective parameters.
Also, in equation (9), the terms h/c| , qs / h| and ps / h| depend on the case considered as

follows.
For dry conditions (Case A, in Table 1 and Figure 11) the terms are

h  d h
=
c 
c

qs 
qs
=

h
d h
and


ps 
ps
=
h
d h

(10)

(11)

(12)

For wet conditions and water level above the ground level (Cases B1 and B2, in Table 1 and
Figures 12a and 12b, respectively), the terms are



w
h  d h s
(13)
=

c 
c
d
d
and


qs 
qs
=

h
d h

d h
c


h
c 

(14)

The remaining pressure terms are, for Case B1,

and for Case B2,


ps 
ps
=

h
d h

d h
c


ps 
ps
=

h
d h

d h
c

w

h
d
c 

 
a  hw 
1 + 
h
h

d h
c


h
c 


h
c 

(15)

(16)

Finally, for wet conditions and water level below the ground level (Cases C1 and C2 in Table 1
and Figures 13a and 13b, respectively), the terms are
 
 


h 
d h  hhw 
d h 1 ha  hhw  s
w
=
+

(17)
1 ha
c 
c 1 ha
c
d
d
and


qs 
qs
=

h
d h

d h
c


h
c 

(18)

The remaining pressure terms are, for Case C1,


ps 
ps
=

h
d h
and for Case C2,


ps 
ps
=

h
d h

d h
c

w

h
d
c 
d h
c


h
c 

 
a  hw 
1  
h
h

d h
c


h
c 

(19)

(20)

It is important to note that equations (17) through (20) are derived taking an average value of unit
weight for the material above the crown of the tunnel a weighted average of dry unit weight d
and saturated unit weight s , weighted with respect to the heights hw and h a hw , respectively
(see Figure 13). Therefore equations (17) through (20), are valid only when hw < h a (see Figure
13). For cases in which the phreatic surface is below the crown of the tunnel (hw > h a in Figure
13), the excavation should be analyzed as if the ground is dry i.e., considering it to be Case A
(Figure 11).

Figure 11. Extended Caquots model for dry ground conditions.

Figure 12. Extended Caquots model for the case of wet ground, water level above ground level, and
conditions of a) dry tunnel and b) flooded tunnel.

Figure 13. Extended Caquots model for the case of wet ground, phreatic level below ground level, and
conditions of a) dry tunnel and b) flooded tunnel.

6 COMPARISON OF RESULTS FROM CAQUOTS EXTENDED MODEL AND NUMERICAL

MODELS
As mentioned in Section 4, the definition of factor of safety introduced in equation (3) is the same
definition of factor of safety considered in the implementation of the strength reduction technique
for Mohr-Coulomb materials available in commercial finite difference and finite element codes such
as FLAC (Itasca, Inc. 2011), FLAC 3D (Itasca, Inc. 2012) and Phase2 (Rocscience, Inc. 2011). In
view of this, factors of safety obtained with the extended Caquots solution presented in previous
sections can be compared on a one-to-one basis with the factors of safety that are obtained using the
strength reduction technique in these commercial packages again, understanding that Caquots
extended solution, being a statically admissible solution, is a lower bound to the true solution, and
therefore factors of safety obtained with this solution will be on the conservative side.
In the following two subsections, examples of stability analysis for cylindrical sections of tunnel
and the front of the tunnel, regarded as a spherical cavity, are presented.
6.1 Stability analysis of long cylindrical tunnel
The problem is represented in Figure 14. The material properties, geometry and loading conditions of the shallow tunnel are indicated in the figure. The problem is solved for the five cases
discussed in Section 5 (see Table 1 and Figures 11 through 13), applying the equations listed in that
section.
Using the computer spreadsheet described in Appendix B (that implements the extended Caquots
solution discussed Section 5) the results listed in the second column of Table 2, and referred to as
Caquots extended results, have been obtained. Note that the resulting values of factor of safety
in Table 2 vary depending on whether water pore pressure is considered for the ground and, in
particular, on whether the water is filling the tunnel or not. Comparing, for example, the factor of
safety for the cases of dry ground (Case A), FS = 1.71, with the factor of safety for the cases of
wet ground and flooded tunnel (Cases B2 and C2), FS = 1.96 and FS = 1.76, respectively, the

Figure 14. Example of cylindrical tunnel section analyzed with Caquots extended model and with FLAC.

Figure 15. FLAC grid used to solve the problem in Figure 14.

effect of water is seen to increase the factor of safety i.e., the water inside the tunnel has the effect
of providing a mechanical support pressure to the excavation above the given value of structural
support pressure ps . Also, the factor of safety for cases of wet ground and dry tunnel (Cases
B1 and C1), FS = 0.97 and FS = 1.61, respectively, result to be smaller than the factor of safety
for dry ground (FS = 1.71). This is because the lack of pore pressure inside the tunnel implies a
reduction of support pressure, from the existing value ps , equal to the value of pore pressure in the
ground at the level of the tunnel crown. Therefore, for the cases B1 and C1, the larger the value of
pore pressure in the ground surrounding the tunnel, the lower the factor of safety obtained for the
tunnel.
It is important to realize that for cases B1 and C1 in this example, in which water is removed from
the excavation, a minimum support pressure, psmin , is required to avoid tensile failure of the tunnel

wall. The value of psmin , provided, for example, by installation of a temporary or a permanent liner,
should be equal at least to the value of pore pressure of the surrounding ground (see, for example,
Carranza-Torres & Zhao 2007).
The problem in Figure 14 has also been solved using the strength reduction technique implemented
in FLAC. For Cases B and C, a total stress analysis with fixed pore pressure specified at the zones
in the model has been performed. The mesh used to analyze the problem is represented in Figure
15. To further illustrate the implementation of the strength reduction technique in FLAC, Figure
16 shows views of the extent of the plastic region (plots on the left) and contours of magnitude of
displacement (plots on the right) for the last stable state (Figure 16a) and first unstable state (Figure
16b) for the model presented in Figures 14 and 15, in the case of dry soil (i.e., the Case A).
Values of factor of safety obtained with FLAC for all five cases considered are summarized in
the third column of Table 2 and referred to as Numerical. Comparing the values of factor of
safety obtained with Caquots solution and FLAC, the former values are observed to be smaller (i.e.,
more conservative) than the latter ones. This is in agreement with the results discussed in Figure 8
and the fact that a statically admissible solution like Caquots solution underestimates the stability
conditions for the tunnel.
Table 2. Factor of safety results for the problem in Figure 14.
Case
Caquots extended Numerical
Type
(Spreadsheet)
(FLAC)
A- Dry ground
1.71
2.01
B1- WL > GL; dry tunnel
0.97
1.03
B2- WL > GL; flooded tunnel
1.96
2.25
C1- PL < GL; dry tunnel
1.61
1.74
C2- PL < GL; flooded tunnel
1.76
2.02

6.2 Stability analysis of tunnel front

Following the analysis by Davis et al. (1980) and Muhlhaus (1985) see Figures 5a and Figures
5b, respectively the extended Caquots solution for spherical cavities is used here to analyze the
stability of the unsupported region near the tunnel front. Figure 17a shows a schematic representation
of the unsupported span behind the tunnel front regarded as a spherical cavity. If the unsupported
span length is denoted as L, and the tunnel has a radius, R, then
the radius of the enclosing spherical
surface, a, can be computed according to the equation a = L2 /4 + R 2 . Figure 17b shows two
side views of tunnel front regions enclosed by spherical surfaces, computed with the equation above,
for ratios L/2R equal to 0.5 and 1.0, respectively.
As an application example, the problem represented in Figure 18 is solved first using the extended
Caquots solution and the finite difference commercial code FLAC 3D . The geometry of the problem
and properties of the material (including loading conditions) are indicated in Figure 18. To simplify
the analysis, the problem is solved for the dry situation only (Case A in Figure 11). Using the
computer spreadsheet presented in Appendix B, the factor of safety according to Caquots extended
model results to be FS = 1.0 (see first row in Table 3). The same problem is solved next using
the strength reduction technique implemented in FLAC 3D . Figure 19 represents the mesh used in
the numerical model. According to FLAC 3D , the factor of safety results to be 1.1 (see second row
in Table 3). This factor of safety, as expected, is larger than the one obtained with the Caquots
extended solution. To illustrate the type of failure obtained with the strength reduction technique
implemented in FLAC 3D , Figure 20 shows views of the extent of the plastic region (plots on the
left) and contours of magnitude of displacement (plots on the right) for the last stable state (Figure
20a) and first unstable state (Figure 20b) obtained for the model represented in Figures 18 and 19.
The problem in Figure 18 has also been solved using a limit equilibrium model for the tunnel
front, with the equations provided in Cornejo (1989) and Tamez et al. (1997) (see Figure 3). The

Figure 16. Extent of plastic region (left) and contours of magnitude of displacement (right) for the problem in
Figures 14 and 15 in the case dry ground, as solved with the strength reduction technique implementation in
FLAC. Plots represented are for a) last equilibrium state; and b) first unstable state obtained with the strength
reduction technique.

resulting factor of safety, FS = 0.75 (see last row in Table 3), is significantly lower than the factor
of safety obtained earlier on with Caquots extended model and with FLAC 3D . This is an expected
result since limit equilibrium solutions (those derived from Terzaghis model) have been shown
already to lead to significantly conservative values of support pressure required for equilibrium, as
compared with statically admissible solutions and numerical models (see Figure 8).
Table 3. Factor of safety results for the problem in Figure 18.
Type of solution
Factor of safety
Caquots extended solution (spreadsheet)
1.00
1.10
Numerical, FLAC 3D
Limit equilibrium solution (model in Figure 3b
0.75

Figure 17. a) Schematic representation of the unsupported span near the tunnel front regarded as a spherical
cavity. b) Side view of tunnel front region enclosed by spherical surface for different ratios of unsupported
length and tunnel radius.

Figure 18. Example of unsupported span of a tunnel front regarded as a spherical cavity, analyzed with
Caquots extended model and with FLAC 3D for dry ground conditions.

Figure 19. FLAC 3D grid used to solve the problem in Figure 18.

Figure 20. Extent of plastic region (left) and contours of magnitude of displacement (right) for the problem
in Figures 18 and 19, as solved with the strength reduction technique implementation in FLAC 3D . Plots
represented are for a) last equilibrium state; and b) first unstable state obtained with this technique.

7 FINAL COMMENTS
From a mechanical point of view, instability of shallow tunnels and instability of slopes in soils
share many similarities. In both cases, gravity or external applied loads (e.g., a surcharge on the
crest of the slope or a surcharge on the ground surface) tend to produce mechanisms by which a
mass of soil detaches and slides along shear surfaces when collapse takes place. In both cases,
additional resisting forces are typically incorporated in the design (e.g., as reinforcement in the
form of soil nails, buttress fills or ponded water, in the case of slopes; and typically reinforcement
and support in the case of shallow tunnels) so as to increase the stability condition for the slope or
tunnel. This is especially important when the strength of the soil is not high enough to guarantee
stability of the slope or tunnel by itself. In view of the similarities between the two problems, it
seems strange that the concept of a factor of safety to characterize stability of slopes in soils has
gained so much popularity among geotechnical engineers, while the very same concept apparently
has been ignored when trying to assess stability conditions for shallow tunnels (including stability
of tunnel fronts).
With the popularity of finite element and finite difference software in the practical design and
analysis of geotechnical engineering in the last years and, in particular, with the availability of the
strength reduction technique for computing factor of safety for basically any problem that can be
modelled with the software (not necessarily slopes), there exists now the opportunity to investigate
further the potential application of a factor of safety concept for the case of shallow openings in
soils. One of the main objectives of this paper has been, indeed, to be a starting point to revive
discussions on the subject.
One of the advantages the authors see in using the concept of factor of safety for the case of
shallow tunnels in combination with simple models, like the extended Caquots solution considered
in this paper, is in being able to easily incorporate uncertainty and variability into the analysis of
stability of shallow tunnels by performing probability analyses of failure. By using simple models
(e.g., closed-form solutions), instead of computing-intensive and time-consuming reduction strength
models implemented in commercial codes, it should be feasible to apply probability techniques like
Monte Carlo simulations as part of design. These techniques are already standard procedures for
conducting slope stability evaluations, especially, when used in combination with relatively fast (to
compute) limit equilibrium models for slopes see, for example, Abramson et al. (2002).
The work presented in this paper is by no means complete, and many further developments are
possible. Some of these are mentioned below.
Although the Caquots solution used in this paper has been said to be an admissible statically
solution, the solution disregards the stress state beyond the circular zone of integration, so strictly
speaking, it does not satisfy equilibrium throughout the medium. This would certainly have influences on predicted values of factor of safety and how far (or close) these values would be from
the ones that could be computed with the strength reduction technique implemented in commercial
software. To address this problem, further analysis is needed, especially to quantify the differences
between factor of safeties obtained with the extended Caquots solution and the actualones (which,
in principle, could be assumed to be given by the strength reduction models). Such analyses should
also account for the influence of other variables that are expected to influence the resulting values
of factor of safety, like distribution of support pressure inside the tunnel, initial state of stress in the
ground, and others.
The scaling law used in deriving the extended Caquots solution in Appendix A could be used for
obtaining convenient dimensionless representations of factor of safety values for shallow tunnels.
Proper scaling should allow to obtain similar stability charts for shallow tunnels as those for slopes
in the best (i.e., most compact) form possible, at least the authors are aware of, as presented in
Hoek & Bray (1981) and Wyllie & Mah (2004).
The spreadsheet presented in Appendix B could be easily modified to implement a Monte Carlo
simulation scheme, and so to compute probability of failure and a statistical reliability quantification

for the design.

Finally, the constitutive model for the soil considered in this paper for the tunnel problems was
the simple Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion. Most commercial software implementing the strength
reduction technique allows application of other constitutive models. A popular one is the HoekBrown failure criterion (Hoek & Brown 1980; Hoek et al. 2002), which is widely used nowadays
in design of excavations in rock masses. The analysis presented in this paper (with the additional
improvements discussed above) could be extended for the case of weak rocks that satisfy the HoekBrown failure criterion.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Many of the developments presented in this paper have been carried out by the first author while
working with Geodata S.p.A. in Turin, Italy, during a two-month working visit in 2004 (see CarranzaTorres 2004). These initial developments are serving as a basis for research work conducted by the
second author of this paper for his MSc graduate work, which is being supervised by the first and
third authors. The first author would like to thank Geodatas president, Dr. Piergiorgio Grasso, and
his associates, Dr. Giordano Russo and Dr. Shulin Xu, for the support and hospitality provided
while working with their group in 2004.

REFERENCES
Abramson, L. W., Thomas, S. L., Sharma, S. & Boyce, G. M. 2002. Slope Stability and Stabilization Methods
(Second ed.). John Wiley & Sons.
Anagnostou, G. & Kovari, K. 1993. Significant parameters in elastoplastic analysis of underground openings.
ASCE J. Geotech. Eng. Div. 119(3), 401419.
Anagnostou, G. & Kovari, K. 1996. Face stability conditions with earth-pressure-balanced shields. Tunnelling
and Underground Space Technology 11(2), 165173.
Atkinson, J. H. & Potts, D. M. 1977. Stability of a shallow circular tunnel in cohesionless soil. Geotechnique 27(2), 203215.
Broms, B. B. & Bennemark, H. 1967. Stability of clay at vertical openings. ASCE Journal of Soil Mechanics
and Foundation Engineering Division 93, 7194.
Caquot, A. 1934. quilibre des massifs a frottement interne. Paris: Gauthier-Villars.
Caquot, A. & Kerisel, J. 1949. Traite de Mecanique des Sols. 2e dition de lOuvrage: quilibre des massifs a
frottement interne. Stabilit des terres pulvrulentes ou cohrentes, de A. Caquot. Paris: Gauthier-Villars.
Carranza-Torres, C. 2003. Dimensionless graphical representation of the elasto-plastic solution of a circular
tunnel in a Mohr-Coulomb material. Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering 36(3), 237253.
Carranza-Torres, C. 2004. Technical Report to Geodata S.p.A.: Computation of factor of safety for shallow
tunnels using Caquots lower bound solution. Itasca Consulting Group. Minneapolis.
Carranza-Torres, C. & Zhao, J. 2007. Analytical and numerical study of the effect of water pressure on the
mechanical response of cylindrical lined tunnels in elastic and elasto-plastic porous media. International
Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 46, 531547.
Chambon, P. & Cort, J. F. 1994. Shallow Tunnels in Cohesionless Soils: Stability of Tunnel Face. Journal
of Geotechnical Engineering 120(7), 11481165.
Chapra, S. C. 2010. Introduction to VBA for Excel (Second ed.). Pearson. Prentice Hall.
Civil Engineer International 1995. Tunnel lining removal prompts LA Metro cave in. Institution of Civil
Engineers, July Issue, 10.
Construction Today 1994a. Police probe repeat Munich tunnel breach. Construction Today, October Issue,
45.
Construction Today 1994b. Unstable ground triggers Munich tunnel collapse. Construction Today, October
Issue, 5.

Cornejo, L. 1989. Instability at the face: its repercussions for tunnelling technology. Tunnels and Tunnelling,
6974.
Davis, E. H., Gunn, M. J., Mair, R. J. & Seneviratne, H. N. 1980. The stability of shallow tunnels and
underground openings in cohesive material. Geotechnique 30(4), 397416.
Davis, R. O. & Selvadurai, A. P. S. 2002. Plasticity and geomechanics. Cambridge University Press.
Dawson, E. M., Roth, W. H. & Drescher, A. 1999. Slope stability analysis by strength reduction. Geotechnique 49(6), 835840.
dEscatha, Y. & Mandel, J. 1974. Stabilite dune galerie peu profunde en terrain meuble. Industrie Minerale 6,
19.
Donald, I. B. & Giam, S. K. 1988. Application of the nodal displacement method to slope stability analysis.
In Proceedings of the 5th Australia-New Zealand Conference on Geomechanics. Sydney. Australia, pp.
456460.
Fairhurst, C. & Carranza-Torres, C. 2002. Closing the Circle. In J. Labuz & J. Bentler (Eds.), Proceedings
of the 50 th Annual. Geotechnical Engineering Conference. February 22, 2002. University of Minnesota.
(Available for downloading at Fairhurst Files, www.itascacg.com; and at www.cctrockengineering.com).
Government of Singapore 2005. Report of the Committee of Inquiry into the Incident at the MRT Circle Line
Worksite that led to the Collapse of Nicoll Highway on 20 April 2004. Government of Singapore, Land
Transport Authority.
Guglielmetti, V., Grasso, P., Mahtab, A. & Xu, S. 2008. Mechanized Tunnelling in Urban Areas: Design
Methodology and Construction Control. London: Tylor & Francis.
Hammah, R. E., Yacoub, T. E., Corkum, B. & Curran, J. H. 2008. The practical modelling of discontinuous
rock masses with finite element analysis. In Proceedings of the 42nd US Rock Mechanics Symposium
(USRMS). San Francisco, California.
Hammah, R. E., Yacoub, T. E., Corkum, B., Wibowo, F. & Curran, J. H. 2007. Analysis of blocky rock
slopes with finite element shear strength reduction analysis. In Proceedings of the 1st Canada-US Rock
Mechanics Symposium. Vancouver. Canada, pp. 329334.
Hoek, E. & Bray, J. 1981. Rock Slope Engineering. Spon Press.
Hoek, E. & Brown, E. T. 1980. Underground Excavations in Rock. London: The Institute of Mining and
Metallurgy.
Hoek, E., Carranza-Torres, C. & Corkum, B. 2002. Hoek-Brown failure criterion 2002 edition. In Proceedings of NARMS-TAC 2002, Mining Innovation and Technology. Toronto 10 July 2002, pp. 267273.
University of Toronto. (Available for downloading at Hoeks Corner, www.rocscience.com).
Horn, M. 1961. Horizontaler Erddruck auf senkrechte Abschlussflchen von Tunneln (Horizontal earth pressure on vertical tunnel fronts). Landeskonferenz der ungarischen Tiefbauindustrie (National Conference
of Hungarian Civil Engineering Industry). Translation into German by STUVA, Dsseldorf.
ITA/AITES 2007. Report 2006 on Settlements induced by tunnelling in soft ground. Presented by working
group Research of the International Tunelling and Underground Space Association. Tunnelling and
Underground Space Technology 22, 119149.
Itasca, Inc. 2011. FLAC (Fast Lagrangian Analysis of Continua) Version 7.0. Itasca Consulting Group, Inc.
Minneapolis. Minnesota.
Itasca, Inc. 2012. FLAC 3D (Fast Lagrangian Analysis of Continua in 3 Dimensions) Version 5.0. Itasca
Consulting Group, Inc. Minneapolis. Minnesota.
Lancellotta, R. 1993. Geotecnica. Seconda edizione. Zanichelli Editore S.p.A., Bologna.
Leca, E. & Dormieux, L. 1990. Upper and lower bound solutions for the face stability of shallow circular
tunnels in frictional material. Geotechnique 40(4), 581606.
Lyamin, A. V. & Sloan, S. W. 2002a. Lower bound limit analysis using non-linear programming. Int. J. Numer.
Anal. Methods Geomech. 55, 573611.
Lyamin, A. V. & Sloan, S. W. 2002b. Upper bound limit analysis using linear finite elements and non-linear
programming. Int. J. Numer. Anal. Methods Geomech. 26, 181216.
Mandel, J., Habib, P., dEscatha, Y., Halphen, B., Luong, M. & Zarka, J. 1974. tude thorique et exprimentale de la stabilit des cavits souterraines. Symposium franco-polonais Problmes de Rhologie et
de Mcanique des Sols. Nice. France.

Muhlhaus, H. B. 1985. Lower bound solutions for circular tunnels in two and three dimensions. Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering 18, 3752.
Oliver, A. 1995. Los Angeles metro collapse investigation focuses on tunnel lining replacement. Ground
Engineering 28(6), 45.
Peck, R. B. 1969. Deep excavations and tunnelling in soft ground. In Proceedings of the 7th International
Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering. Mexico City, August 1969, pp. 225281.
Peila, D. 1994. A theoretical study of reinforcement influence on the stability of a tunnel face. Geotechnical
& Geological Engineering 12(3), 145168.
Plaxis, bv 2012. Plaxis 2D (Finite Element Software for Geotechnical Professionals). Plaxis bv. Delft. The
Netherlands.
Proctor, R. V. & White, T. L. 1946. Rock Tunnelling with Steel Supports. Commerical Shearing, Inc., Ohio.
Rocscience, Inc. 2011. Phase2 (Finite Element Analysis for Excavations and Slopes) Version 8.0. Rocscience.
Toronto.
Salenon, J. 1977. Applications of the theory of plasticity in soil mechanics. Series in geotechnical engineering.
Wiley. New York.
Tamez, E., Rangel, J. L. & Holgun, E. 1997. Diseno Geotecnico de Tuneles. Editorial TGC, Mexico.
Tanzini, M. 2001. Gallerie. Aspetti Geotecnici nella Progettazione e Costruzione. Dario Flaccovio Editore.
Palermo. Italia.
Terzaghi, K. 1943. Theoretical Soil Mechanics. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Terzaghi, K., Peck, R. & Mesri, G. 1996. Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice. New York: John Wiley &
Sons, Inc.
Timoshenko, S. P. & Goodier, J. N. 1970. Theory of Elasticity (Third ed.). New York: Mc. Graw Hill.
Vermeer, P. A., Ruse, N. & Marcher, T. 2002. Tunnel heading stability in drained ground. Felsbau 20(6),
818.
Wyllie, D. C. & Mah, C. W. 2004. Rock Slope Engineering. Civil and Mining. Taylor & Francis.
Zienkiewicz, O. C., Humpheson, C. & Lewis, R. W. 1975. Associated and non-associated visco-plasticity
and plasticity in soil mechanics. Geotechnique 25(4), 671689.

APPENDIX A. DEMONSTRATION OF CAQUOTS STABILITY EQUATION

Caquots solution (Caquot 1934; Caquot & Kerisel 1949) is a classical solution for determining the
stress field around a circular tunnel located below a flat surface. This appendix presents a demonstration of equation (1) in the main text, which is one of the fundamental expressions conforming
Caquots solution. The analysis that follows refer to the same problem presented in Figure 9.
In reference to Figure 9, and to simplify the formulation, the radial distance, r, is first scaled with
respect to the tunnel radius, a. This defines the dimensionless ratio, , i.e.,
=

r
a

(A-1)

Note that according to equation (A-1), the position of the ground surface, r = h in Figure 9, is
determined by the variable , i.e.,
h
=
(A-2)
a
The material surrounding the tunnel is assumed to obey the Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion, so
that the relationship between major and minor principal stresses at failure, the quantities 1 and 3 ,
respectively, is

1 = 3 N + 2c N
(A-3)

In equation (A-3), c is the cohesion and N is the passive reaction coefficient of the material (see,
for example, Terzaghi et al. 1996), which is computed from the internal friction angle, , as follows


1 + sin

2
= tan
+
(A-4)
N =
1 sin
4
2
Also, to simplify the formulation, a particular form of scaling that applies to Mohr-Coulomb
shear
 failure will be used. The scaling consists in adding the term c tan , or equivalently, the term
2c N /(N 1) to the normal stresses (see, for example, Anagnostou & Kovari 1993; CarranzaTorres 2003). Therefore, when scaled according to the rule mentioned above, the radial and hoop
stresses, r and , respectively (see Figure 9), become

2c N
(A-5)
Sr = r +
N 1

2c N
(A-6)
S = +
N 1
Note that in equations (A-5) and (A-6), and also in the equations that follow, capital letters are used
to denote scaled stresses.
When the stresses are scaled according to equations (A-5) and (A-6), the Mohr-Coulomb failure
criterion (equation A-3) takes the following simple form
S1 = N S3

(A-7)

Caquots solution is obtained by integrating two force equilibrium equations for the radial and
hoop directions in the circular area around the cavity in Figure 9, in particular, considering that
the limit state of equilibrium is reached along the segment AB in Figure 9. This Appendix will
not present the demonstration of the full solution for the stress field obtained by the integration
mentioned above, but just the demonstration of equation (1) in the main text, which can be obtained
by stating equilibrium of forces along the segment AB in Figure 9. Indeed, considering that Figure 9
represents either the case of a cylindrical cavity (for which the out-of-plane stress is an intermediate
principal stress) or a spherical cavity (for which the out-of-plane stress is equal to the hoop stress)
equilibrium of forces along the segment AB in terms of the scaled quantities introduced earlier on
can be written as (see, for example, Timoshenko & Goodier 1970)
dSr
Sr S
+ a = 0
+k

(A-8)

In equation (A-8), the parameter k takes the value 1 for the case of cylindrical cavities and the value
2 for the case of spherical cavities.
When the material is at a state of plastic failure along the segment AB in Figure 9 due to unloading
of the cavity (i.e., when the internal pressure in Figure 9 is reduced from the initial value defined
by in-situ stress conditions), the radial stress will become a minimum principal stress and the hoop
stress will become a major principal stress. Therefore, considering S1 = S and S3 = Sr in equation
(A-7) and replacing this into equation (A-8), the equilibrium condition along the segment AB in
Figure 9 is written as follows


N 1 Sr
dSr
+ a = 0
(A-9)
k

d
According to Figure 9, the unknown function, Sr , in equation (A-9) is required to satisfy the

following conditions
Sr

= Qs

for =

(A-10)

Sr

= Ps

for = 1

(A-11)

where Ps and Qs are scaled values of internal pressure and ground surcharge, respectively, i.e.,

2c N
(A-12)
Ps = p s +
N 1

2c N
Qs = qs +
(A-13)
N 1
Solving the ordinary differential equation (A-9) and applying the conditions (A-11) and (A-10),
the following relationship between the scaled internal pressure, Ps , and the scaled surcharge, Qs ,
is obtained


Ps
1
Qs k(N 1)


(A-14)
=

1k(N 1) 1
a
a
k N 1 1
Equation (A-14) is one of the expressions conforming Caquots solution, which is transcribed as
equation (1) in the main text. The reader is referred to Caquot (1934) and Caquot & Kerisel (1949)
for a demonstration of the entire Caquots solution.
APPENDIX B. SPREADSHEET FOR THE COMPUTATION OF FACTOR OF SAFETY
ACCORDING TO CAQUOTS MODEL
R spreadsheet and associated VBA
R code (see, for example,
This appendix describes an Excel
Chapra 2010) that implements the equations (9) through (20) in the main text and allows computation
of the values of factor of safety for cylindrical and spherical openings, for the five cases (Cases A,
B1/B2 and C1/C2) listed in Table 1 and represented in Figures 11 through 13. The layout of the
spreadsheet is shown in Figure B-1. The yellow cells in the spreadsheet are input cells while the
green cells are output cells. The input parameters to be entered in the spreadsheet are listed in
Table B-1 (see yellow cells in Figure B-1).
The output variables (see green cells in Figure B-1) are as follows: i) the factor of safety
coefficient, FS, for the opening computed by numerical solution of the transcendental equation (9);
and ii) a line of comments indicating whether the computation of factor of safety was successful or
not.
Note that the resulting value of factor of safety, FS, is computed after the user presses the button
Compute results. The user can also clear all the input variables cells at once by pressing the button
Clear results. By pressing either of the two buttons mentioned above, Excel calls the VBA macro
listed in Figures B-2 through B-5.

Table B-1. Description of input parameters and required units for the spreadsheet in Figure B-1
- Analysis case [1 or 2]:
This is the parameter k in the equations (9) through (20), in Section 5. As discussed in Section 4, k = 1
is for cylindrical openings and k = 2 is for spherical openings.
- Hydraulic Conditions [1, 2, 3]:
The value entered in this cell allows to distinguish between cases 1) A; 2) B1 or B2; and 3) C1 or C2 in
Table 1 and Figures 11 through 13, and to apply the proper equations within the group of equations (9)
through (20), in Section 5.
- Cylinder or sphere radius [m]:
This is the variable a in the equations (9) through (20), in Section 5. The value entered here should be
equal to the radius of the tunnel if k = 1, or the radius of the enclosing sphere if k = 2 see Figure
17.
- Depth Tunnel Axis [m]:
This is the variable h in the equations (9) through (20), in Section 5.
- Dry unit weight [kN/m3 ]:
This is the variable d in the equations (9) through (20), in Section 5.
- Mohr-Coulomb effective friction angle [deg]:
This is the variable , that allows computation of the coefficient N according to the equation (2), for
use in the equations (9) through (20), in Section 5.
- Mohr-Coulomb effective cohesion [kPa]:
This is the variable c in the equations (9) through (20), in Section 5.
- Ground surface surcharge [kPa]:
This is the variable qs in the equations (9) through (20), in Section 5.
- Tunnel support pressure [kPa]:
This is the variable ps in the equations (9) through (20), in Section 5. A representative value of (maximum
possible) support pressure at the crown of the tunnel for the installed liner should be specified.
- Water pressure case [1, 2]:
The value entered in this cell allows to distinguish between cases 1) B1/C1 or 2) B2/C2, i.e., dry excavation or flooded excavation, respectively (see Table 1 and Figures 11 through 13), for the application
of the correct set of equations, within the group of equations (9) through (20), in Section 5.
- Distance between water surface and ground surface [m]:
This is the variable hw in the equations (9) through (20), in Section 5. According to these equations, the
spreadsheet will convert the entered value to a positive value (the absolute value of the input value will
be considered).
- Saturated unit weight [kN/m3 ]:
This is the variable s in the equations (9) through (20), in Section 5.
- Unit weight water [kN/m3 ]:
This is the variable w in the equations (9) through (20), in Section 5.

Figure B-1. Excel spreadsheet for the computation of factor of safety using the extended Caquots solution.

Figure B-2. VBA program for Excel spreadsheet in Figure B-1.

Figure B-3. VBA program for Excel spreadsheet in Figure B-1. Continued from Figure B-2.

Figure B-4. VBA program for Excel spreadsheet in Figure B-1. Continued from Figure B-3.

Figure B-5. VBA program for Excel spreadsheet in Figure B-1. Continued from Figure B-4.