Using 3D Numerical Analysis for the Assessment of Tunnel–Landslide Relationship: Bahce–Nurdag Tunnel (South of Turkey)

  • M. P. Komu
  • U. Guney
  • T. E. Kilickaya
  • C. GokceogluEmail author
Original Paper


Owing to the increase in population, transportation has become one of the major research topics. Among existing transportation systems, railway is one of the most economic and fast systems, and therefore, there has been an increase in new railway constructions in recent years. In Turkey, the longest railway tunnels, the Bahce–Nurdag high-speed rail tunnels, are under construction in the southern part of the country. This twin tubes tunnels are approximately 10 km in length, and they are excavated using tunnel boring machines (TBM). The tunnel route locates in the East Anatolian Fault Zone and the portal region is composed of debris and old landslide deposits. For this reason, mitigating the potential landslide hazard is critical for the tunnel. Therefore, the present study investigates the TBM tunnelling–landslide relationship by employing 3D numerical analyses. The analyses show that the last 600 m of the tunnel has a potential landslide hazard and some additional measures should be considered along this part to ensure tunnel safety. The tunnel conditions are highly complex, and thus it is an interesting case for tunnel engineers.


Bahce–Nurdag tunnel TBM Fault zone GSI Landslide 



The authors thank to General Directorate of Turkish State Railways (TCDD) for having provided part of TBM data, geological/geotechnical information and data, and their continuous support. In addition, this paper is produced from the M.Sc. thesis of the first author, M. P. Komu.


  1. AFAD (2018) Türkiye Deprem Haritası. Accessed 19 Jan 2019
  2. Allahverdi N, Nasri V (2013) Three dimensional numerical analysis for soft ground tunneling. In: Seventh international conference on case histories in geotechnical engineering, 29 April–4 May, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  3. Ambrasseys NN (1989) Temporary seismic quiescence, SE Turkey. Geophys J 96:311–333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Arpat E, Saroglu F (1972) Dogu Anadolu Fayı ile ilgili Bazı Gozlemler. MTA Dergisi 78:44–50Google Scholar
  5. Arpat E, Saroglu F (1975) Turkiye’deki Bazı Onemli Genç Tektonik Olaylar. Turkiye Jeoloji Kurumu Bulteni 18:91–101Google Scholar
  6. Cho WS, Song KI, Kim KY (2014) Mechanical behavior of ground due to EPB shield TBM tunnel excavation passing through fractured zone. In: Yoo C, Park S-W, Kim B, Ban H (eds) Geotechnical aspects of underground construction in soft ground. Korean Geotechnical Society, Seoul, pp 577–580CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Delmonaco G, Leoni G, Margottini C, Puglisi C, Spizzichino D (2003) Large scale debris-flow hazard assessment: a geotechnical approach and GIS modelling. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 3:443–455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Doruk P (1991) Analysis of laboratory strength data using the original and modified Hoek brown failure criteria. Master of Science Thesis, University of TorontoGoogle Scholar
  9. Duman TY, Çan T, Emre Ö (2011) 1/1.500.000 Türkiye Heyelan Envanteri Haritası, Maden Tetkik ve Arama Genel Müdürlüğü Özel Yayınlar Serisi, No.27, Ankara, TürkiyeGoogle Scholar
  10. Fugro Sial Yerbilimleri Musavirlik ve Mühendislik Ltd (2014) Bahce Nurdag Gecis Tuneli (KM: 03 + 653.12–KM: 13 + 450): Jeolojik – Jeoteknik Proje RaporuGoogle Scholar
  11. Gokceoglu C (2018) TCDD Bakim Dairesi Başkanlığı Bahçe – Nurdağ (Fevzipaşa) Varyantı Projesi Hakkinda Ek Rapor. Hacettepe University, AnkaraGoogle Scholar
  12. Herece H, Akay E (1992) Karlıova-Celikhan Arasında Dogu Anadolu Fayi, Turkiye 9. Petrol Kongresi, pp 361–372Google Scholar
  13. Hoek E (2001) Rock mass properties for underground mines. In: Hustrulid WA, Bullock RL (eds) Underground mining methods engineering fundamentals and international case studies. Society for Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration (SME), LitletonGoogle Scholar
  14. Hoek E, Brown ET (1997) Practical estimates of rock mass strength. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 34:1165–1186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hoek E, Diederichs MS (2006) Empirical estimation of rock mass modulus. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 43:203–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hoek E, Carranza-Torres CT, Corkum B (2002) Hoek–Brown failure criterion—2002 edition. In: Proceedings of the fifth North American rock mechanics symposium, Toronto, Canada, pp 267–273Google Scholar
  17. Hu MJ, Wang R, Chen ZX, Wang ZB (2010) Initiation process simulation of debris deposit based on particle flow code. Rock Soil Mech 31:394–397Google Scholar
  18. Imamoglu MS, Cetin E (2007) Guneydogu Anadolu Bolgesi ve Yakin Yoresinin Depremselligi. D.Ü. Ziya Gokalp Egitim Fakultesi Dergisi 9:93–103Google Scholar
  19. Iverson RM (1997) The physics of debris flows. Rev Geophys 35:245–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kanungo DP, Pain A, Sarkar S, Sharma S, Jain SK, Ahmad Z (2012) Field investigation and finite element modelling of progressive debris slide in the Indian Himalayas. WIT Trans Eng Sci 73:15–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Komu MP (2019) Investigation of tunnel boring machine-landslide relation in a tunnel excavating in a complex geological condition: Bahçe-Nurdağ Tunnel. Master Thesis, Institute of Graduate School of Science and Engineering, Hacettepe University, AnkaraGoogle Scholar
  22. Lee L, Yun TS, Lee D, Lee J (2013) Assessment of K0 correlation to strength for granular materials. Soils Found 53(4):584–595CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Liu C, Zhang L, Bai B, Chen J, Wang J (2012) Nonlinear analysis of stress and strain for a clay core rock-fill dam with FEM. Procedia Eng 31:497–501CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Marinos P, Hoek E (2001) Estimating the geotechnical properties of heterogeneous rock masses such as flysch. Bull Eng Geol Environ 60:85–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. McKenzie D (1972) Active tectonics of the Mediterranean region. Geophys J R Astron Soc 30:109–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Meng Z, Xian X (2013) Analysis of the mechanical property of mudstone/shale in paralic coal measures and its influence factors. J Coal Sci Eng 19:1–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Nalbant SS, McCloskey J, Steacy S, Barka AA (2002) Stress accumulation and increased seismic risk in eastern Turkey. Earth Planet Sci Lett 195:291–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Salam SA, Ata A, Shaalan O, Hammad N (2015) Modeling of TBM tunnel construction for the greater Cairo metro line 3. Int J Eng Innov Technol 4:18–24Google Scholar
  29. Saroglu F, Emre O, Kuscu I (1992a) Turkiye Diri Fay Haritasi. MTA Yayini, AnkaraGoogle Scholar
  30. Saroglu F, Emre O, Kuscu I (1992b) East Anatolian fault zone of Turkey. Annal Tect 6:99–125Google Scholar
  31. Seymen I, Aydın A (1972) Bingol Deprem Fayi ve Bunun Kuzey Anadolu Fayi ile Iliskisi. MTA Dergisi 79:1–8Google Scholar
  32. Sonmez H, Ulusay R (2002) A discussion on the Hoek-Brown failure criterion and suggested modifications to the criterion verified by slope stability case studies. Yerbilimleri 26:77–99Google Scholar
  33. TCDD (General Directorate of Turkish State Railways) (2014) Bahce Nurdag Tuneli (KM: 3 + 653–13 + 450) KM: Jeolojik – Jeoteknik Proje RaporuGoogle Scholar
  34. TCDD (General Directorate of Turkish State Railways) (2018) Bahce Nurdag Tuneli (KM: 3 + 510–13 + 452) KM: 3 + 510 ile KM: 4 + 110 kesimi NATM Projesi Jeolojik ProfiliGoogle Scholar
  35. Ulusay R, Tuncay E, Sonmez H, Gokceoglu C (2004) An attenuation relationship based on Turkish strong motion data and iso-acceleration map of Turkey. Eng Geol 74:265–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Usta D (2018) Turkıye Jeoloji Haritalari Serisi Gaziantep-N37 Paftasi, Maden Tetkik Arama Genel Mudurlugu (MTA). Jeoloji Etutleri Dairesi, No.266, AnkaraGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Geological Engineering DepartmentHacettepe UniversityBeytepe, AnkaraTurkey
  2. 2.Progeo Engineering IncGOP Cankaya, AnkaraTurkey
  3. 3.General Directorate of Turkish State RailwaysAltindag, AnkaraTurkey

Personalised recommendations