ISRM International Symposium 2010 and 6th Asian Rock Mechanics Symposium - Advances in Rock Engineering,

23-27 October, 2010, New Delhi, India

LONGITUDINAL DEFORMATION PROFILE OF A TUNNEL

DRIVEN WITHIN A BURGER ROCK MASS
P. YIOUTA-MITRA AND A.I. SOFIANOS
Tunnelling Laboratory, National Technical University, Athens, Greece, e: antipaxos@metal.ntua.gr;
sofianos@metal.ntua.gr
R. RAHMANNEJAD
Shahid Bahonar University of Kerman-Iran, e: r_rahmannejad@hotmail.com
ABSTRACT : The Longitudinal Deformation Profile (LDP) is an important component of the ConvergenceConfinement method. The present study concerns numerical simulation, by means of the finite difference code
FLAC 3D, to calculate the LDP curve for an unlined tunnel driven in a Burger visco-elastic rock mass model in
various stress fields. Model constants of the Burger rockmass are selected according to a detailed literature
review and parameterized in order to simulate different time-dependent situations of rock mass. The results are
plotted, analyzed, discussed and compared against known empirical solutions and found in good agreement.
1.

BACKGROUND

1.1.

Time-dependent response

Observed displacement of a specific point in an underground excavation can be expressed as the sum of
displacements caused by two effects, the face advance and the time dependent reaction of the ground. In order to
describe the time-dependent deformation due to creep in tunnels, various approaches have been established
based on analytical, empirical and numerical methods.
To briefly report an indicative selection of researches that include time in stability analysis of tunnels, one
would start with the basic research that was presented by Sulem et al [12]. In their suggested analytical method
an explicit solution was proposed for the determination of the radial displacements and the ground pressure
acting on tunnel support. This model takes into account the face advance effect and the time-dependent behavior
of the rock mass and gives a reasonable estimation of the convergence and the pressure acting on the lining. It
was based on a Kelvin-Voigt rheological model.
A closed-form solution for the calculation of the pressure acting on tunnel support structures was given by
Sakurai [10]. He introduced an equivalent initial stress in order to solve three-dimensional effects of the
tunnel face progression with a two-dimensional plane strain model of tunnel- support structures for elastic and
visco-elastic media. Also, by means of a three component visco-elastic model, relations are given for the
calculation of tunnel wall displacement and pressure on lining.
In another research by Ghaboussi and Gioda [4], the short-term effects that develop when a tunnel is driven in a
ground showing viscous behaviour associated with the deviatoric deformations is studied. Also, radial
deformation of a lined tunnel when there is an unsupported zone between the face of the excavation and the
liner, the effects of a temporary interruption of the excavation process and of various rates of tunnel excavation.
More recently, Shalabi [11] performed viscoelastic analysis with the Abaqus code to model ground squeezing
through the heavily sheared and fault zones of the Red Pine shale of still-water tunnel (Utah, USA) under an
overburden of 700 m. He concluded that the effect of tunnel face advance on the crown displacement extends to
a distance of about 2 tunnel diameters behind the tunnel face and 1.5 tunnel diameters ahead of the face. This
zone of influence is slightly wider than the zone that has been predicted from elastic analysis.
Yiouta-Mitra et al [15] performed viscoplastic analysis of materials with swelling and creep potential to
investigate the effects on the tunnel final lining loads. Sofistik numerical code and the viscoplastic Perzyna
model were used on the basis of the convergence-confinement method. A maximum creep load of 24% of the
initial hydrostatic stress was found to be generated in the time period of one year after the application of primary
support. The creep load was found dependent on time and material properties.
Related researches are numerous and not in the intention of this article to present. In this research, the 3-D
numerical differences code Flac 3D is used to perform analyses for a deep unlined circular cavity in a

surrounding rockmass of the Burger viscoelastic model (VEB) in a non-hydrostatic stress field. In this way, the
effect of the face advance is realistically included and the effect of the time-dependent reaction of the rockmass
is provided by the VEB.
1.2.

Rheological approach

Time dependent response of rock masses is usually termed as rheological. Most rocks exhibit both instantaneous
and delayed deformation when loaded, and are therefore described as viscoelastic or viscoplastic. According to
the general form of the creep curve for rocks, immediate strain is followed by primary creep in which strain
occurs at a decreasing rate with time. In some rocks, the primary creep curve approaches a steady rate of creep,
termed secondary creep. Tertiary creep may follow if stresses near peak strength are exerted. Tertiary creep is
marked by an upward turning in the stress-strain curve since strain rate is increasing with time and leads to
failure. Linear viscoelastic models account for instantaneous elastic and time dependent linear viscous response.
Considering the characteristic equation for creep under constant stress and limiting the constants used to
represent the time-dependent behaviour to four, the basic spring-dashpot models are summed in Table 1.
Table 1: Basic spring-dashpot models for elastic time-dependent behaviour

A four-constant body, termed the Burger body is composed of a Maxwell and a Kelvin body in series. Its
response to a suddenly applied and sustained stress is a combination of the response of all other models
contained in Table 1. In view of the form of the general creep curve, this is the simplest model that can be used
to trace strain up to the onset of tertiary creep. More complicated models can be invoked by adding additional
springs and dashpots, but the Burger model is preferable for many practical purposes [5].
1.3.

Calculation of LDP

The Longitudinal Deformation Profile (LDP) is the graphical representation of the radial displacement that
occurs along the axis of an unsupported cylindrical excavation for sections located ahead of and behind the
excavation face. The interaction of the support with the surrounding rock mass is closely related to the advance
of the tunnel face and the time-dependent response of the surrounding rock mass involving creep, weathering,
consolidation and similar phenomena. Researchers, such as Panet and Guenot (1982), Panet (1993, 1995), Chern
et al. (1998), Carranza-Torres and Fairhurst (2000), Unlu and Gercek (2003), Vlachopoulos and Diederichs
(2009) have suggested elastic or elasto-plastic relations for the LDP.
The longitudinal deformation profile is generally assumed to be a sigmoid curve independent of the sequence
and speed of construction. The deformational properties of the rock mass, in situ stresses and tunnel size
significantly affect the magnitude of elastic displacements occurring around the tunnel. Therefore, the radial
displacements are normalized with respect to the maximum plane strain value (U) in order to eliminate the
effects of elastic properties, initial stress and tunnel diameter.
Ideally, for tunnels designed according to the Convergence-Confinement method, the LDP should be drawn
from measured data. Where such information is not available, the LDP can be approximated by axisymmetric 2D numerical models considering the same elasto-plastic parameters used in the determination of the Ground

Reaction Curve. Alternatively, and as a first approximation, the LDP could be evaluated using existing
relationships.
Equations that have so far been developed to estimate the normalised LDP for a circular tunnel in a hydrostatic
stress field are presented in Table 2. Equation (1) is based on finite element analyses and is valid for the region
behind the face. Equation (2) was proposed as an alternative of equation (1). Equation (3) was similarly based
on elastic stress analyses and is valid for the same region. In all these equations, x0 is the distance to the tunnel
face. Equation (4) by Hoek (in Carranza-Torres et al, 2000) is an empirical equation based on measured field
data and is valid both for x0 (ahead of the tunnel face) as well as behind. Unlu and Gercek (2003), studied the
effect of the poisson ratio on the LDP and proposed equations (5), noting that a different relation is required for
the LDP ahead of the tunnel face (first relation, with subscripts "a") and a different one behind the face (second
equation, with subscripts "b")
Table 2: Suggested relations for calculation of LDP

Author
Panet and Guenot [7]

Relation
U
0.84
0.28 0.72 1 (
)2
U
0.84 x / R

Panet [9]

U
U

0.25 0.75 1 (

Corbeta[3]

U
U

x
0.29 0.71 1 exp( 1.5( ) 0.7 )
R

Carranza-Torres and
Fairhurst (Hoek) [1]

U
U

1 exp(

Unlu and Gercek [13]

U
U

U0

2.

NUMERICAL ANALYSES

2.1.

Model

1.7

Aa 1 exp( B a X ) ;

where
U 0 0.22

Ab

x/R
)
1.1

0.75
)2
0.25 x / R

0.22

0.19; X
0.81; Bb

A series of 3-D finite differences numerical

experiments have been performed in order to
calculate the LDP and compare it to the
relations of Table 2. The numerical code used
was FLAC3D Itasca, 2006[6]. Due to the
symmetry in the geometry and boundary
conditions, only one quarter of the tunnel and
surrounding medium are taken into account.
For this purpose a model with dimensions
252320 m in which a quarter cylindrical
cavity of radius R=3m was excavated for a
distance of 15m (Figure 1). Varying
overburden stresses were imposed through
boundary
conditions.
Five
different
configurations of Burger constants of rock
mass i.e. shear modulus of Maxwell and
Kelvin (Gm,Gk), viscosity of Maxwell and
Kelvin constants (m, k) and bulk modulus (k)
have been used in order to simulate different
time-dependent situations of the rock mass.

x / R ; Aa
0.39

U
U

0.22

U0

Ab 1 (

0.19 ; Ba

Bb
Bb

0.73

)2

0.81;

0.65

Figure 1: Flac 3-D finite differences model

Based on a detailed literature review, the ratio of G m/Gk is selected in the range of 0.1-1 and the ratio of m/k in
the range of 1-100. The stress field is also varied, with h/v= 0.3, 0.43, 1. Table 3 contains all model properties
and stress fields. Model 6 is identical to Model 4 as far as Burgers constants are concerned but it is in a
hydrostatic stress field.
The corresponding numerical experiments are solved for characteristic time periods up to one year. In each case,
the time history of vertical displacement along the tunnel axis at the crown of tunnel is extracted for the elastic
and creep solutions. The corresponding elastic analyses are performed with the Maxwell shear modulus.
Table 3: Material properties and stress field of numerical models
Model
1
2
3
Property
Gm
1.92E+07
5.00E+07
1.50E+08
Gk
3.00E+07
5.00E+08
1.50E+08
m
1.00E+13
1.00E+18
1.00E+15
k
1.00E+12
1.00E+16
1.00E+13
v
1.50E+06
4.50E+06
4.50E+06
h
6.45E+05
1.50E+06
1.50E+06
K
4.17E+07
5.00E+08
3.00E+08
E
4.99E+07
1.45E+08
3.86E+08

0.30
0.45
0.29
Gm/Gk
0.64
0.10
1.00
m/k
10
100
100
h/v
0.43
0.33
0.33
2.2.

4
1.00E+08
2.50E+08
1.00E+15
1.00E+14
4.25E+06
1.42E+06
3.00E+08
2.70E+08
0.35
0.40
10
0.33

5
1.00E+08
2.50E+08
1.00E+15
1.00E+13
4.25E+06
1.42E+06
3.00E+08
2.70E+08
0.35
0.40
100
0.33

6
1.00E+08
2.50E+08
1.00E+15
1.00E+14
4.25E+06
4.25E+06
3.00E+08
2.70E+08
0.35
0.40
10
1.00

Results and discussion

The absolute displacements Z at the tunnel crown for all models in a Burger and the equivalent elastic rock mass
are depicted in Figures 2 and 3. It is immediately obvious that the viscosity parameters play an important role in
the magnitude of the absolute displacements. Models 3, 4 and 5 gave very similar results, contrary to Models 1,
2 and 3 that had noticeable differences in magnitude. Model 2 is the one closest to the elastic behaviour due to
the very high values of Maxwell and Kelvin viscosity, while Model 1 with the lowest viscosity values depicts
stronger time dependency and certain jaggedness in its profile.
The dimensionless LDP (Z*=Z/Zmax) is presented in Figure 4 where all models, elastic and VEB alike, have
been included. There is no legend since the curves practically coincide. It is thus confirmed that the distance to
the excavation face is the most important parameter to define the dimensionless LDP. The results have also
shown that 98% of the maximum crown displacement is reached at 3 radii behind the face. Ahead of the face the
situation is more blurred but it can be seen in the close-up of Figure 5 that 10% of the maximum crown
displacement is reached for -0.6x/R-1.6. It is also observed that the thicker lines, corresponding to the
hydrostatic model 6 are more or less a mean and that all visco-elastic responses lie above the line Model 6 VEB 1 year, while all elastic responses lie below Model 6 - elastic. The sole exception to this observation is
the visco-elastic response of Model 2. As it was mentioned earlier, this model is the closest to the elastic
behaviour due to very high viscosity values.

2.00
1.80
1.60
Z displacement (m)

1.40
1.20
Model 1 - VEB 1 year creep

1.00

Model 1 - elastic

0.80

Model 5 - VEB 1 year creep

0.60

Model 5 - elastic

0.40
0.20

0.00
-4

-2

x/R

Figure 2: Absolute radial displacements at the tunnel crown along the tunnel axis for Models 1 and 5.
0.35
0.30
Model 2 - VEB 1 year creep

Z displacement (m)

0.25

Model 2 - elastic
0.20

Model 3 - VEB 1 year creep

Model 3 - elastic

0.15

Model 4 - VEB 1 year creep

0.10

Model 4 - elastic

Model 6 - VEB 1 year creep

0.05

Model 6 - elastic

0.00
-4

-2

x/R

Figure 3: Absolute radial displacements at the tunnel crown along the tunnel axis for Models 2, 3, 4 and 6.
1.0

0.9
0.8
0.7
Z/Zmax

0.6
0.5

0.4
0.3
0.2

0.1
0.0

-4

-3

-2

-1

x/R

Figure 4: Normalised radial displacements at the tunnel crown along the tunnel axis for all Models

0.40

Model 1 - VEB 1 year creep

Model 1 - elastic

0.35

Model 2 - VEB 1 year creep

0.30

Model 2 - elastic
Model 3 - VEB 1 year creep

Z/Zmax

0.25

Model 3 - elastic

0.20

Model 4 - VEB 1 year creep

0.15

Model 4 - elastic
Model 5 - VEB 1 year creep

0.10

Model 5 - elastic

-4

-3

-2

-1

0.05

Model 6 - VEB 1 year creep

0.00

Model 6 - elastic

x/R

Figure 5: LDP ahead of the tunnel face.

Table 3 contains the ratio of visco-elastic to elastic normalised LDP curves, i.e. when the ratio is 1 then the two
responses are equal. It is evident that there is better agreement behind the tunnel face than ahead of it.
Table 3: Ratio of normalised visco-elastic to elastic LDP
x/R
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.67
1.33
1.00
0.67
0.33
0.00
-0.33
-0.67
-1.00
-1.33
-1.67
-2.00
-2.33
-2.67
-3.33

Model 1
1.00
0.99
1.00
0.98
1.02
0.98
1.04
0.94
1.12
1.04
1.34
1.63
1.63
1.99
1.91
2.38
2.24
2.78
3.01

Model 2
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.01
1.01
1.02
1.07
1.19
1.31
1.51
1.72
1.96
2.17
2.36
2.49
2.61

Model 3
1.00
0.99
1.01
0.98
1.02
0.98
1.05
0.98
1.14
1.09
1.46
1.89
2.05
2.70
2.89
3.86
4.05
5.16
5.80

Model 4
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.01
1.00
1.03
1.00
1.11
1.08
1.43
1.81
2.07
2.66
3.11
4.02
4.73
5.78
6.74

Model 5
1.00
0.99
1.01
0.98
1.02
0.98
1.04
0.98
1.13
1.07
1.42
1.85
2.03
2.75
3.01
4.18
4.52
6.03
7.04

Model 6
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.99
1.01
1.04
1.02
0.98
1.08
1.05
1.11
1.17
1.09
1.18
1.09
1.19
1.11
1.21
1.22

A parametric analysis on creep time effect was performed on Models 2 and 4. Creep time was given values of 1
day, 1 week, 3 months and 1 year. The dimensionless LDP gave an output similar to Figure 4. Again, the
agreement was very good among all analyses behind the tunnel face, while poorer ahead of the tunnel face. In
order to have a better picture of this effect, the values of ratio r of the visco-elastic dimensionless LDPs to the
elastic dimensionless LDP were again calculated for crown points along the tunnel axis. The results in Figure 7
reveal perfect agreement among all curves behind the tunnel face. Ahead of the face though, the visco-elastic
response can be as high as 7 times the respective elastic for the specific models that are examined.

-4.00

Model 4

0.30

0.35

0.25

0.30

0.20
elastic

0.15

VEB 1-day creep

0.10

VEB 1-week creep

0.05

VEB 3-month creep

0.00

VEB 1-year creep

-2.00

0.00

2.00

0.25

Z displacement

Z displacement

Model 2

0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00

-4.00

4.00

-2.00

0.00

x/R

2.00

4.00

x/R

Figure 6: Effect of creep time on crown vertical displacements along the tunnel axis for Models 2 and 4.
Model 4
8.00

2.50

2.00

elastic

1.50

VEB 1-day creep

1.00

VEB 1-week creep

0.50

VEB 3-month creep

-2.00

7.00
6.00
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00

VEB 1-year creep

0.00
-4.00

Z* visco-elastic/ Z* elastic

Z*visco-elastic/Z* elastic

Model 2
3.00

0.00

x/R

2.00

4.00

6.00

0.00

-4.00

-2.00

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

x/R

Figure 7: Plots of viscous to elastic ratio versus distance from tunnel face for various creep durations.
2.3. Comparison to empirical LDP equations
It is in the interest of this research to compare the visco-elastic response of the Burger rock mass to the existing
empirical relations of Table 2. It has already been seen that in terms of different Burgers constants and creep
times, there is substantial change in the normalised LDP with relation to the elastic response, only ahead of the
tunnel face. It is therefore expected that existing relations will give good approximation of the visco-elastic LDP
behind the tunnel face if there was already good agreement with the elastic one.
Figure 8 is the typical diagram obtained by the comparison of the numerical experiments performed in this
research to the existing empirical relations reported in Table 2. As expected, there is very good agreement in the
area behind the tunnel face. Equation 4 is the sole exception and this is probably because it is based on actual
project measurements. This means that it includes plasticity phenomena and would therefore be more
appropriately compared to elastoplastic or viscoplastic models. For equations 4 and 5 of Table 2, that include the
area ahead of the tunnel face, it is observed that these empirical equations lie between the visco-elastic and
elastic LDP of Model 1.
Taking a closer look at the behaviour ahead of the tunnel face, it can be observed that the disagreement between
empirical and the current research LDPs may be attributed to the non-hydrostatic field of the models. Figure 9
depicts the calculated LDPs of Model 4 and its equivalent hydrostatic Model 6 for 1 year creep time and for
elastic behaviour as compared to relevant empirical equations. The variance of the curves is minimized in the
hydrostatic field of Model 6, thus giving a better agreement with the empirical relations.

1.00
0.90

Model 1 - VEB 1 year creep

Z/Zmax

0.80
0.70

Model 1 - elastic

0.60

Panet & Guenot

0.50

Panet

0.40
Corbetta

0.30
0.20

Carranza-Torres (Hoek)

0.10

Unlu and Gercek

0.00
-4.00

-2.00

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

x/R

Figure 8: Comparison of Model 1 calculated normalised LDP to existing empirical relations.

Model 6

Model 4

0.40

0.40
0.35

0.35

VEB 1 year creep

0.30

0.30
0.25

elastic

0.20
Carranza-Torres
(Hoek)

0.15

Z/Zmax

Z/Zmax

0.25

0.20
0.15

0.10

0.10
Unlu and Gercek

0.05

0.05

0.00
-4.00

-3.00

-2.00

-1.00

0.00
0.00

-4.00

x/R

-3.00

-2.00

-1.00

0.00
x/R

Figure 9: Comparison of Model 4 and Model 6 normalised LDPs ahead of the face to existing empirical
relations.
6.

CONCLUSIONS

This work contains analysis of the longitudinal deformation profile for a tunnel excavated in a Burger viscoelastic medium. A series of 3-D numerical experiments has been performed with the finite differences code Flac
3D for 6 different model configurations. The results have been analyzed and compared to existing empirical
relations for the calculation of the LDP. The following conclusions have been drawn:
1. The viscosity parameters of the Burger visco-elastic model play
deformations of a tunnel driven in this rockmass.
2. The normalised LDP behind the tunnel face shows strong dependence
face.
3. The normalised LDP ahead of the tunnel face is further sensitive to
parameters and the creep duration.
4. Empirical relations suitable for elastic or visco-elastic rock mass
normalised LDP calculated on the Burger rock mass model.

an important role in the absolute

only on the distance from the tunnel
the initial stress field, the rockmass
were in good agreement with the

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This research has been performed in the Tunnelling Laboratory of the National Technical University of Athens.

REFERENCES
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.

8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.

15.

Carranza-Torres, C., Fairhurst, C. (2000) "Application of the convergenceconfinement method of tunnel

design to rock masses that satisfy the HoekBrown failure criterion" Tunn Undergr Sp Tech 15: 187-213
Chern, J.C., Shiao, F.Y., Yu, C.W. 1998. An empirical safety criterion for tunnel construction. Proceedings
of the Regional Symposium on Sedimentary Rock Engineering, Taipei, Taiwan, pp. 222227.
Corbetta, F., Bernaud, D., Nguyen-Minh, D., 1991. Contribution a la methode convergenceconfinement
par le principe de la similitude. Rev. Fr. Geotech. 54, 511.
Ghaboussi J., Gioda G., 1977. On the time-dependent effects in advancing tunnels, Int J Num Anal Meth in
Geomech., Volume 1, Issue 3, Pages: 249-269.
Goodman R.E., 1980. Introduction to rock mechanics, 2nd Edition, John Wiley & Sons, New York.
Itasca (2006) FLAC3D. Version 3 and 4. Fast Lagrangian Analysis of Continua. 3D Version.
Panet M., Guenot A., 1982. Analysis of convergence behind the face of a tunnel: Tunnelling 82,
Proceedings of the 3rd international symposium, Brighton, 711 June 1982, P197204. Publ London:
IMM.
Panet, M., 1993. Understanding deformations in tunnels. In: Hudson, J.A., Brown, E.T., Fairhurst, C.,
Hoek, E. (Eds.), Comprehensive Rock Engineering, Vol. 1. Pergamon, London, pp. 663690.
Panet, M., 1995. Calcul des Tunnels par la Methode de ConvergenceConfinement. Presses de lEcole
Nationale des Ponts et Chaussees, Paris.
Sakurai, S., 1978. Approximate time-dependent analysis of tunnel support structure considering progress
of tunnel face. Int. J. Numer. Anal. Methods Geomech. 2, 159175.
Shalabi F.I.,2005. FE analysis of time-dependent behavior of tunneling in squeezing ground using two
different creep models, Tunn Undergr Sp Tech, Volume 20, Issue 3, Pages 271-279.
Sulem J., Panet M., Guenot A., 1987. An analytical solution for time-dependent displacements in a circular
tunnel, Int. J. Rock Mech. and Min. Sci. & Geom. Abstracts, Volume 24, Issue 3, Pages 155-164.
Unlu T., Gercek H., 2003. Effect of Poisson's ratio on the normalized radial displacements occurring
around the face of a circular tunnel, Tunn Undergr Sp Tech, Volume 18, Issue 5, Pages 547-553.
Vlachopoulos N., Diederichs M. S., 2009. Improved Longitudinal Displacement Profiles for Convergence
Confinement Analysis of Deep Tunnels, Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering, Volume 42, Number 2,
Pages 131-146.
Yiouta-Mitra, P., Sofianos A.I., Gekas, S. 2010. Time-dependent loads on tunnel final linings. In : Zhao,
Jian; Labiouse, Vincent; Dudt, Jean-Paul; Mathier, Jean-Franois (eds.), European Rock Mechanics
Symposium EUROCK 2010, EPFL, Lausanne, Switzerland, June 15-18. Publ. The Netherlands: CRC
Press/Balkema.

Paraskevi Yiouta-Mitra graduated in Mining Engineering from the National Technical University of Athens
(N.T.U.A.), in Greece in 1999. She obtained a post-graduate degree of specialization in Computational
Engineering at the same University in 2003. She has worked in the private sector as supervising mining engineer
since 2000. She joined the research group of the Tunnelling Laboratory at the N.T.U.A. in 2003 where she
specializes in the design and construction of underground structures. She was elected Editor of the Greek
Tunnelling Society in 2008.
Reza Rahmannejad graduated in Mining Engineering from the University of Kerman (Shaahid Bahonar) in
1990. He obtained a Ph.D. in Civil Engineering at the Moscow state university of Civil Engineering. From 2000
to 2009 he has been Professor of Mining Engineering at the University of Kerman, where he specializes in
"Underground Construction". From 2009 up to now he does research in the Technical University of Athens.
Alexandros Sofianos graduated in Civil Engineering from the National Technical University of Athens
(N.T.U.A.), in 1973. He has Postgraduate studies in Concrete Structures and Soil Mechanics and he obtained in
1984 a Ph.D. in Rock Mechanics at Imperial College, UK. He worked for the private and public sector in
various countries, specializing in rock engineering. From 2003 he has been Professor of Geotechnical
Engineering at the N.T.U.A., and Director of the Tunnelling Laboratory, where he specializes in the design and
construction of underground structures.