PRACTICAL DISCUSSION ON THE

INTERPRETATION OF GEOMONITORING MEASUREMENTS AND

THEIR INFLUENCE ON TUNNEL SUPPORT DESIGN. A CASE STUDY
G. Angistalis, I. Papadatos, I. Rentzeperis, E. Saridou

Egnatia Odos A.E. 6th klm Thessaloniki-Thermi, Thessaloniki,

Greece, GR 570 01

Keywords: convergence, rate, countermeasures

INTRODUCTION
This is a paper that discusses, in a practical/empirical manner, the movements –and their impact on
the support measures- which have been measured during the excavation of the top heading of the
Driskos motorway tunnel (now in operation), during the years 2000 to 2002. The total length of the
tunnel is almost 4.5km and consists of two parallel 12m span tunnels. It belongs to the Egnatia Mo-
torway in Northern Greece. The measurements of 37 (3–point) monitoring stations have been ana-
lyzed and evaluated. The evaluation has been focused on the measured maximum vertical and hori-
zontal movements, their rate of development (mm/day) and their relation with the rock mass quality
and support behavior. The driving force behind this discussion has been the observation that, in
general, high early (measured close to the excavation front) rates of convergences (mm/day) have
resulted later in failures of the installed support.
The discussion is structured as follows: a) Description of the rock mass and support measures, b)
presentation of the movements measured, c) correlation of the movements with the rock mass and
the support behavior, d) description of support performance, failures, back analysis and counter
measures, e) testing the results against existing models, and finally, f) the description of an attempt
to obtain an empirical model for the prediction of the support behavior.

ROCK MASS, SUPPORT MEASURES

The rock mass

Driskos tunnel has been excavated in the so-called Ionian flysch formation, which mainly comprises
alternations of siltstones and sandstones in various proportions, with shear and fault zones.

Figure 1 – Fault and shear zones in the flysch formation of Driskos tunnel. Hard rock pieces represent Sand-
stone and Siltstone. In fault/ shear zones the geomaterial is soft and clayey.

1
The thickness of these zones varied from some centimeters to generally less than one meter. Ground
water has been almost everywhere present, in the form of drops or small inflows through faults and
sheared/fractured zones. The strength parameters of the rock mass are given in a following para-
graph. Figure 1 shows a fault/shear zone in the flysch formation of Driskos tunnel in a borehole
core. In the fault and shear zones, the formation has been similar to soft soil, which could be easily
molded with the fingers. Figure 2 shows a geological mapping data sheet of a similar a rock mass.

Figure 2 - Geological mapping of faults, crossing alternations of siltstone-sandstone layers

The excavation and support measures

For the excavation and support of the 4.5 klm tunnel, five support classes have been initially de-
signed and applied in almost its 2/3. At the section under consideration the tunnel has been exca-
vated sequentially in two stages, that is top-heading and bench. Additional measures have been im-
plemented later, to tackle the higher displacements observed in some areas of the tunnel. Table 1
describes support classes III and IV. The strength of the shotcrete has had a compressive strength
equal to 4,0 MPa in 8 hours, and 28,5 MPa in 28 days (20x20x20cm cubes). The mix design of the
shotcrete has complied with specification ACI 214. These support classes (III and IV) have been
applied in most of the tunnel’s length and provided a basis for the correlation of the geo-monitoring
data prior to the implementation of additional measures.

Table 1 - Excavation and support measures for support classes III and IV (top heading)
Support measures per excavation step III IV
Shotcrete thickness at the top heading [fiber reinforced 15cm 20cm,
(30Kgr/m3)]
Fully grouted rock bolts: pattern, length, diameter 1,3m x 1,3m, 1,2m x 1,0m,
l=4m and 3m, Ø 25 l=4m and 6m, Ø 25
Steel ribs - Lattice girders 95/D26 per 1m
Excavation step A phase (mainly drill and blast) ≤ 1,5m/(day) 1m/(day)

GEOMONITORING RESULTS

General
The movements observed, during the excavation of the top heading of the tunnel, have been meas-
ured at three point convergence stations. One measuring point has been installed on the tunnel roof
and the two others have been installed at either side of the excavation profile. The monitoring sta-
tions evaluated, belong to a discrete part of the tunnel (~2,0klm). In this tunnel part, the geological

2
conditions and the excavation and support methods used, have been relatively similar. The width of
the excavation is 12m and the height is 6m.

Results
For a length of almost 2,0 km of the excavated tunnel, the convergence results from thirty seven
(37) stations have been evaluated together with the support class applied, rock mass conditions, ge-
ology and ground water, overburden and observed behavior of the shotcrete shell.

Table 2. Data of Monitoring stations in the section of Driskos tunnel under consideration.
a/a Description of Water Maximum horizontal Maximum Over Support
geologic forma- movement (mm) vertical burden class
tion movement (mm)
1 See comment1 Dry to damp 3,4<30 1 23,1 IV
2 -//- Dry to damp 8,9<30 15<30 35,81 IV
3 -//- 13,7<30 20<30 42 IV
4 -//- Dry to damp 6,2<30 18,5<30 56,87 IV
5 -//- Dry to damp 7,7<20 21>20 57,56 III
6 -//- Dry to Damp 9,9<20 24>20 57,96 III
7 -//- Wet to dripping 6,3<30 49>30 58,41 IV
8 -//- Wet to dripping 10,9<30 37>30 58,9 IV
9 -//- Wet to dripping 22,8<30 56>30 59,4 IV
10 -//- Damp 7,5<30 64>30 59,4 IV
11 -//- Dripping 7,5<30 27<30 63 IV
12 -//- Dry 17,9<20 26>20 82,35 III
13 -//- Dry 5,1<20 34>20 115 III
14 -//- Dry 6,0<20 32>20 111,49 III
15 See comment 2 Water drops 24,2<30 133>30 125,82 IV
16 -//- Dry to Damp 37,4>30 205>30 120,82 IV
17 -//- Damp to wet 8,7<30 43>30 89,3 IV
18 See comment 1 No data 7,7 <30 14<30 25 IV
19 -//- No data 8,9<30 15<30 35 IV
20 -//- No data 13,7<30 20<30 43,5 IV
21 -//- Dry 4,4<30 14<30 60,29 IV
22 -//- Dry to damp 8,3<30 11<20 64 III
23 -//- Dry 10,4<30 31>20 66,5 III
24 -//- dripping 6,4<30 40>30 67,8 IV
25 -//- Wet 8,2<30 64>30 68,83 IV
26 See comment 3 Wet 11,2<30 44>30 69,1 IV
27 -//- Dry -Damp 16,1<30 55>30 72,14 IV
28 -//- Damp 3,4<30 44>30 84 IV
29 -//- Wet to dripping 2,4<30 50>30 101,21 IV
30 -//- Dry 2,4<20 21>20 117,8 III
31 -//- Dry to damp 2,4<20 21>20 125,9 III
32 -//- No data 1,2<20 93>20 116,19 III
33 See comments1&3 30lit/h from 23,6<30 67>30 124,52 IV
fault
34 -//- 23,2<30 80>30 126 IV
35 -//- 1-2m3/h 15,3<30 61>30 97,74 IV
36 -//- Light flow 4,2<30 50>30 108 IV
37 -//- Light flow 7,4<30 80>30 89,3 IV
Comment 1: Alternations of thin to medium bedded sandstone and siltstone. Comment 2: Major fault zones were
identified (more than 1 meter thick). Comment 3: Significant fault zones.

3
 The results are shown in table 2. The maximum vertical and horizontal movements measured are
compared with the maximum anticipated ones (20mm and 30mm) that derived from the numerical
calculations of the tunnel design. The first occurred during the excavation of the top heading of the
tunnel, while the numerically predicted ones, correspond to the excavation of the entire tunnel cross
section (top heading and bench). Both the vertical and horizontal movements of table 2 are the
maximum reported.
The vertical movements measured have been proved to be higher than the horizontal ones. Fig-
ure 3 shows the ratio of vertical to horizontal movements per measuring station. The ratio for sta-
tion a/a No32 has not been included in the chart because its value (70) is well outside the cluster of
the majority of the ratio values. The average ratio of vertical to horizontal movements is 8. How-
ever, most of the ratio values are between 2 and 6.

22.0
20.0
18.0
horizontal movement

16.0
Ratio of vertical/

14.0
12.0
10.0
8.0
6.0
4.0
2.0
0.0
1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29
Measuring stations
Figure 3 - Ratio of vertical to horizontal movements

0 0
∆h(mm)

-5
-10 -10
-20 -15
∆h(mm)

-30 -20
0 0 0
-40 3/0 3/0 3/ 0
1 5/ 1 6/ 1 7/
-50
-60
-70
0 0 0 1 1 1 2 2 2
5/3 /0 5/7 /0 /1 1/0 5/3/0 5/7/0 /1 1/0 5/3 /0 5/7 /0 /1 1/0
1 1 15 1 1 15 1 1 15

Figure 4 - Pattern of vertical movements. The lines represent the movements of the three measuring
points. One on the roof and two on the sidewalls of the tunnel

4
 These values may be firstly attributed to some degree to practical construction reasons, such as
the foundation conditions of the shotcrete shell. The areas of foundation of the shotcrete shell gen-
erally suffer from over-excavation, especially when steel sets are used. Also, the water accumula-
tion in these areas may cause deterioration and softening of the siltstone or the soil-like fault geo-
material. This may result in some ground consolidation in the foundation areas. Figure 4 shows a
typical pattern of the vertical movements from station a/a No26. The three curves represent the ver-
tical movements measured in three points (one at the top and two at either side of the shell) of the
shotcrete shell.

Discussion and evaluation

The highest values of movements have been reported at convergence stations a/a No15 and a/a
No16 in areas of fault zones, of a thickness of approximately one meter. Water has been present in
the form of drops or small inflows.

90
80
70
∆h maximum (mm)

60
R = 0.53
50
40
30
20
10
0
20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
RMR
Figure 5 - RMR vs maximum vertical movements [∆h maximum (mm)]

To evaluate the rock mass conditions during construction, at this particular part of the tunnel, we
have used the RMR classification system. The average RMR value for support class IV was 32
(poor rock), while the highest value was 37 and the lowest 23. For support class III, the average
RMR value was 46 (sound rock), while the highest value was 54 and the lowest 39. The relatively
higher movement values were obtained in the areas of support class IV (see table 2).
Figure 5 shows a correlation between the maximum vertical movements and the RMR values,
while in figure 6 the RMR values have been replaced by the overburden. In the preparation of these
charts, the values of the two monitoring stations mentioned in the first paragraph have been consid-
ered as outliers and have not been included in the chart. The extreme values of movements observed
at these stations may be probably explained by the presence of thick faults: the behavior of the
ground/shotcrete shell system in this area has been mostly controlled through the poor soil-like
strength characteristics of the fault gouge, instead of those of the surrounding rock mass.
Despite the big scatter of data, we generally observe an increase of movements when the RMR
values decrease. The upper left cluster of points represents mainly the values related to support class
IV, while the lower right cluster of points represents the values related to support class III. Consid-
ering the uncertainties involved in the classification of the rock mass and the development of

5
movements, i.e. mainly the timing of the support measures’ completion, the timing of installation of
the measuring station, and the rate of excavation, this tendency seems to be significant. The correla-
tion coefficient of the trend line is R=0.53.

140

120

100
Overburden (m)

80
R = 0.34
60

40

20

0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Vertical movements (mm)
Figure 6 - Maximum vertical movement vs overburden

The chart in figure 6 correlates the magnitude of the movements with the overburden. The corre-
lation coefficient for is R=0.34. Despite the fact that this correlation is not high, the movements
generally tend to increase with the increase of the overburden.
The rate of the early movements has proved to correlate with the history of the measuring station
and the behavior of the ground/support system. Figure 7 correlates the average rate of vertical
movements observed during the first days with the maximum movements measured. Cracks in the
shotcrete shell start to develop when the vertical movements exceed the value of 40 to 50mm or
~1% of the 6m excavation height.

160
140
R = 0.93
120
∆h maximum (mm)

100
80
60
40
20
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Rate (α) of early movement (mm/day)

Figure 7 - Rate of movement (a) vs maximum vertical movement [∆h maximum (mm)]

6
 This behavior is associated with a rate of an early movement of almost 0.3cm to 0.4cm per day.
Higher rates resulted in more extensive damage of the shotcrete shell. These high rates generally
correlate well with the rock mass conditions and especially with the areas of the fault zones filled
with soft clayey material.

SHOTCRETE SHELL PERFORMANCE AND BACK ANALYSIS

Shotcrete shell failures and countermeasures

The deformations resulted in cracking of the shotcrete shell for almost 220m of the tunnel’s length
(figure 8). Apart from the cracks, in this part of the tunnel, the anticipated development of move-
ments, during the excavation of the tunnel bench, has been also a challenge. The top heading had to
be strengthened by means of additional measures, prior to the commencement of the bench excava-
tion. Based on the monitoring data, a detailed back analysis design has been carried out.
(Koronakis, 2001).

Figure 8 - Crack development in the shotcrete shell

The aim has been to obtain numerical results of the actual movements and compare the calculated
stress of the shotcrete shell with the maximum available. Plain strain finite element analyses have
been carried out. The design simulated the rock mass as an elastoplastic continuum medium and ap-
plied different “k” ratios (horizontal/vertical stress) to produce the actual pattern of movements. The
design parameters have been calculated using the Hoek and Brown failure criterion. The input data
used for support class IV are: GSI=20, σci = 15, mi = 8, Em(GPa) =0.689, C(Kpa)=255, φ0=20.9,
γ(KN/m3)=27, ν=0.3 and K-0.6-0.9. The back analysis results have proved that the stress values de-
veloped in the shotcrete shell exceed the allowable one, thus resulting in the development of cracks.
The idea behind the measures (grout improvement of the rock mass) designed to strengthen the
damaged areas, was to keep the increases in the stresses and movements to the minimum possible

7
during the excavation of the bench. To estimate the strength properties of the improved ground
around the excavation, it has been assumed that 5% of the area, to be grouted, would be filled with
grout. Therefore the grouted rock mass strength would have a σcm improved = 0.95σcm + 0.05σgrout (σcm
= 0.74MPa, for the rock mass, σgrout = 30 MPa, for the grout). The calculated input data (for the
subsequent analyses) for the improved rock mass (of the support class IV) have been: GSI=31, σci =
25 mi = 8, Em(GPa) =1.7, C(Kpa)=704, φ0=24.7, γ(KN/m3)=27, ν=0.3 and K-0.6-0.9. Figure 9
shows the magnitude of the yield zone around the tunnel bores: a) after bench excavation (with no
ground improvement), b) after bench excavation (with ground improvement). In the first case yield
zone extends more than 9 meters, while in the second case yield zone is limited to 6 meters. The
saving, in the total maximum vertical displacement, between the two cases is 67mm.

(a)

(b)
Figure 9 – Extend of yield zone around the two tunnel bores:(a) more than 9 meters after bench excavation
(no improvement), (b) less than 6 meters after bench excavation (with improvement+additional rock bolts))

Table 3 shows the stress increases in the shotcrete shell for the abovementioned cases. The addi-
tional strengthening measures have been resulted to the minimum possible stress increase (from
49.81MPa to 59.64MPa) in the partially failed shotcrete shell. They have been selected as cost ef-
fective in the context of the construction contract, including improvement of the rock mass by
means of grouting, installation of additional anchors and excavation of the bench with a small (1
meter) excavation step. The measures taken to strengthen/improve the damaged shotcrete shell (to
ensure safe working conditions) have not been included in the design analyses and are not discussed
herewith.

Table 3 - Back analysis results (maximum stresses) in the Driskos tunnel section under consideration.
Support section IV Maximum stress in the shotcrete shell (top
heading). Maximum allowable, 28,5MPa
Excavation of phase A (top heading). Actual situation. 49,81 > 28,5
Excavation of phase B without additional measures 73,2 > 28,5
Excavation of phase B: Additional measures: Rock bolts
1,3mX1,3m 8m long in top heading, grouting of the rock mass at
59,64> 28,5
the sidewalls of phases A and B of the tunnel of a depth reaching
5m, plus grouting below the tunnel invert to a depth reaching 3m.

8
Grouting
Figure 10 shows the pattern of the holes (per 1,5m of tunnel length) drilled for the grout injection
around the tunnel. The pressures and volumes of grout injected are also shown (Koronakis, 2001).

Figure 10 – Pattern of grouting. Pressures and volumes of grout injection in a section

The length of the drill holes has been 4,5m and 6m, Ø55mm in diameter. Grouting has been gener-
ally carried out in two stages at 5m and 2m respectively (no casing, packers only). The pressures of
grout injection (w/c < 1 and 3%-5% of bentonite) have been ranging from 1bar to 3bars and the
volume of the grout injected has been generally less than 400 liters per hole. The maximum values,
of grout volume injected have been recorded near and around the excavation perimeter. For the
completion of the tunnel cross section, the bench has been excavated at an excavation and support
step equal to 1 meter. The bench excavation has not triggered any further movements or develop-
ment of cracks of the support shell.

ASPECTS OF EMPIRISM

Magnitude of movements
Α brief analysis of the real absolute magnitudes of the movements followed the general principle of
the methodology for estimating the potential tunnel squeezing, proposed by Hoek & Marinos (Hoek
& Marinos, 2000) using closed form solutions for a circular tunnel. According to this methodology,
the strain percentage of an unsupported tunnel (tunnel closure/tunnel diameter x 100) may be pre-
dicted by application of the following equation:

σ cm
ε = 0.2( ) (−2 ) (1)
po
Where σcm = rock mass strength and po = in situ stress.
For the current data, the actual percentage strains (for the supported tunnel) have been plotted
against the ratio of the rock mass strength σcm /in situ stress po. The rock mass strength has been

9
calculated with application of the Hoek & Brown failure criterion. The values of in situ stress po are
the overburden x unit weight of the rock mass. This is shown in the figure No 11.
0.60

0.50
Percentage strain ε

0.40

0.30

0.20
-0.8
ε = 0,07(σcm/po)-0,8
0.10 R = 0,81

0.00
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
Rock mass strength σcm /in situ stress po
Figure 11 – Percentage strain (ε=100 x tunnel closure/tunnel diameter) of the supported tunnel vs rock
mass strength σcm/in situ stress po

The correlation (power curve) is high; however, the number of points is relatively limited. Simi-
lar data have not been included in the charts, as they could influence in the wrong way the correla-
tion. Figure No 12 shows the curve proposed by Hoek & Marinos for unsupported tunnels and the
curve for the supported Driskos tunnel. Due to the installed support, the latter is shifted towards
limited strain values.
14
-2
12 ε = 0,2(σcm/po)-2
curve for Unsupported tunnel
10 (Hoek & Marinos 2000)
Percentage strain ε

6
-0.8
4 ε = 0,07(σcm/po)-0,8
curve for Supported
2 Driskos Tunnel

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
Rock mass strength σcm /in situ stress po

Figure 12 – Percentage strain (ε=100 x tunnel closure/tunnel diameter) for the supported and unsup-
ported tunnel vs rock mass strength σcm/in situ stress po

10
Rate of movements
The early rate of the shotcrete shell movements’ development depends mainly on the rock mass
strength, its speed of failure, its creep potential and the strength/stiffness development of the shot-
crete shell. Generally speaking, the question associated with the behavior of the support is α)
whether the young shotcrete will be strong enough to withstand the early loads imposed on it by the
rock mass and b) what its post failure behavior is going to be. The early and final shotcrete strength,
- and finally its performance and efficiency - will depend on the rate of its loading and on its prop-
erties/mix design. Depending on the early loading and the early rate of deformation, the final
strength/modulus of elasticity of the shotcrete may be significantly reduced. Moussa, reports
(Moussa, 1993) that early loading of the shotcrete shell up to 70% of its strength at early stages
(almost one week) may result in significant losses of strength at later stages.
In the context of this discussion, the rates of the strains’ development have been plotted against
the ratio σcm/po. The quantity σcm/po is the one that correlates better with the early rate of movement.
The result is shown in figure 13. It is obvious that, the lower the rock mass strength σcm/in situ
stress po is, the higher the early rate of strain development becomes. The higher correlation
(R=0.81) is described by the logarithmic equation (2). The area above the dotted line on the plot
includes the points that correspond to the measuring stations, where shotcrete failures have oc-
curred.

σ cm
α = -2,13ln - 0,70 (2)
po

The equation (2) of this curve is an example that predicts – for a 12 m span tunnel and for the “set”
of support measures described in table 1 - the early rate of strain development and the subsequent
potential of shotcrete failure, from the ratio σcm /po. Of course, different support measures/method
of excavation and related parameters will result in different curves and this is an issue that is related
to the evaluation of more data.

7
α, rate of movements (mm/day)

3
α= -2,13ln(σcm/po)-0,70
2 R=0,81

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
σcm/po

Figure 13 – Rate of early movements (a=mm/day) in the shotcrete shell vs rock mass strength σcm/in situ
stress po

11
Generally speaking, this equation proves that the poorer the rock mass is and the higher the in-situ
stress, the faster its failure becomes (through the development of creep strains) and the faster the
subsequent load application on the shotcrete shell will be. It illustrates the importance - when select-
ing/designing a supporting system for a tunnel in poor ground - of comparing in terms of time, the
strength/stiffness development of the shotcrete and the stresses induced by the rock mass.

CONCLUSIONS
The movements which have been measured during the excavation of the top heading of a significant
section of Driskos tunnel have been found to correlate with the rock mass quality and to a lesser de-
gree with the overburden. The principles of the methodology proposed by Hoek & Marinos (Hoek
& Marinos, 2000), for strains relating to rock mass strength and in situ stress, apply well in the
evaluated data of Driskos tunnel; the aforementioned parameters have been found to correlate with
the measured strains in a similar manner. The rate of the early movements of the shotcrete shell was
found to correlate well with the maximum observed ones, and the damages induced to it. It also cor-
relates with the ratio rock mass strength σcm/in situ stress po. This rate seems to be a good indicator
for predicting the shotcrete shell performance, testing the design, and proactively counteract. How-
ever, additional data are required, in order to determine significant values of early strain develop-
ment rates, which may be used as an engineering tool.

REFERENCES
Hoek, E., Marinos, P. (2000), Predicting Squeeze, Tunnels and Tunnelling International, December 2000, pp. 33-36.
Koronakis, N. (2001), Definitive Design of Driskos Tunnel, Omikron Kappa Design Consultants Ltd, Athens, Greece,
EDR GmbH, Munchen, Germany (Unpublished).
Moussa, A. (1993), Finite Element Modelling for Shotcrete in Tunnelling, Ph.D. Thesis, Innsburg University, Austria.

12