Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 18 (2003) 347363

Analysis of structural interaction in tunnels using the covergence confinement approach

P.P. Oreste*
Department of Georesources and Land, Technical University of Turin, Corso Duca Degli Abruzzi 24, Turin 10129, Italy Received 8 June 2002; received in revised form 16 December 2002; accepted 4 January 2003

Abstract The rock-support interaction in tunnels is studied through the use of the convergenceconfinement method. The equations that characterize the behaviour of the most important support types are given together with a set of conceptual interaction schemes. As far as the behaviour of the support is concerned, reference is made to the ultimate limit state concept, which is widely used in civil engineering. This approach is linked to the classical convergenceconfinement method. The interaction between the temporary support system and the final lining is dealt with, and the noteworthy case of presupport ahead of the face, followed by a further internal support (usually steel sets and shotcrete) is also included. Finally, the ground reaction curve of the reinforced tunnel, which allows one to analyse the interaction between the reinforcement around the tunnel and supports, is introduced. 2003 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Structural interaction; Tunnels; Convergenceconfinement approach

1. Introduction During the excavation of tunnels in unstable rock masses using conventional methods, several types of temporary supports interact with the purpose of stabilising the opening before the final lining is completed. With the tendency, in some cases, to advance full face even in large tunnels and under difficult conditions, the support structures and the rock reinforcement can be very complex, requiring a rational understanding of the interaction with the rock mass. The ever increasing attention into the costs of work has led to research for the economic optimisation of the support structures, that is, for the choice of the different combinations of types, which, with an equality of technical results, would permit lower costs. If, for example, rock reinforcements and support structures are planned to stabilise a large tunnel, it is necessary to know exactly how they interact and to define the best combination of all the possible technical combinations from the economic point of view. The study of the interaction between support structures can easily be carried out using the convergence
*Tel.: q39-1-1564-7608; fax: q39-1-1564-7699. E-mail address: pierpaolo.oreste@polito.it (P.P. Oreste).

confinement method. This method allows one to have a qualitative understanding of the interaction phenomenon and helps operative choices. In more complex cases, it is necessary to use numerical schemes; however, the computational effort required to analyse the results would need to be intensive to produce a parametric analysis that is able to improve the final design. 2. The convergenceconfinement method The convergenceconfinement method for a circular tunnel in a hydrostatic stress field (for example: Lombardi, 1975; Hoek and Brown, 1980; Bouvard-Lecoanet et al., 1988; Brown et al., 1983; A.F.T.E.S., 1993; Panet, 1995; Peila and Oreste, 1995) gives the displacement and the load acting on the support through the intersection of the ground reaction curve of the tunnel and the support reaction line (Fig. 1): the reaction line can be defined on the basis of the following four parameters: stiffness k: ratio, in elastic conditions, between the pressure applied by the ground and the displacement of the support (at the extrados); displacement of the wall uin, which has already developed on installation of the supports;

0886-7798/03/$ - see front matter 2003 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/S0886-7798(03)00004-X

348

P.P. Oreste / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 18 (2003) 347363

3. Typical reaction line of a support structure 3.1. Steel sets The kset stiffness of a closed circular steel set is given by the following simplified expression (Eq. (1)) (Hoek and Brown, 1980): kset( 1 hset E2 F dCRytblocky D 2 G
B

(1) q 2dqtblock R 2 Ewoodbblock

EstAset
Fig. 1. The convergenceconfinement method. Key: p: internal tunnel pressure; u: radial displacement of the wall (positive towards the tunnel axis); p0: in situ hydrostatic stress; peq: pressure acting on the support structure; pmax: pressure that induces the plastic failure of the structure (support capacity); k: support stiffness wforceylength3 x; uin: displacement of the wall before support installation; ueq: displacement at equilibrium; uel: displacement of the wall on reaching the elastic limit in the support; umax: displacement of the wall on collapse of the support; and A: equilibrium point of the tunnel-support system.

pressure pmax which induces the yielding of the support; and displacement of the tunnel wall umax which causes the support to collapse. A support defined with the reaction line of Fig. 1 has an ideal elastic-perfectly plastic behaviour: having reached yielding (elastic limit), it continues to deform with the same load until collapse occurs (Fig. 2). The stiffness of the support in plastic conditions is zero. There are often some uncertainties in the evaluation of uin. As a first approximation, uin is given by the distance from the excavation face where the support is installed, by the diameter of the tunnel and by the mechanical characteristics of the ground (Panet and Guenot, 1982; Panet, 1995). The stiffness k of the structure and the equilibrium load peq also influence the value of uin. These uncertainties influence the evaluation of the equilibrium point on the convergenceconfinement curve. It is advisable to use a parametric analysis for this calculation, varying uin in the interval of values that is considered to be correct. The behaviour of steel sets, shotcrete lining and rockbolts, the most frequently used support systems, has been analysed. The interaction between the supports and the final lining is dealt with later in the paper. The ways of taking into account the interaction between rock reinforcement (through bolting) and ground improvement, (e.g. through injection) around the tunnel and the traditional support systems are also analysed.

where: kset is the stiffness of the steel set wforcey length3x; Est is the elastic modulus for the steel; R is the radius of the tunnel; d is the steel set spacing along the tunnel axis; Aset is the cross-sectional area of the steel section; 2q is the angle between the connection points; tblock is the thickness of the connection blocks (in the radial direction); bblock is the width of the connection block (in the circumferential direction); and Ewood is the elastic modulus of the wood that the blocks are made of. In the case where wood blocks are not used, Eq. (1) can be further simplified as follows: ksets EstAset B hset E2 F dCRy D 2 G (2)

The equilibrium condition gives (Eq. (3)) the maximum pressure pmax sustainable from the steel set: sst,yAset pmax,set( B h E CRy set Fd D 2 G (3)

Fig. 2. Elastic-perfectly plastic behaviour assumed for the support material: once the yield strength smax is reached the material continues to develop plastic strains under constant load, until the strain max is reached, corresponding to collapse of the support.

P.P. Oreste / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 18 (2003) 347363

349

where: sst,y is the yield strength of the steel and hset is the cross-sectional height of the steel section. The collapse of the steel set occurs when the br,st failure strain is reached in the steel, that is, when the q circumferential strain in the steel set equals br,st. ur Given that qs B (where ur is the radial hset E CRy F D 2 G displacement of the steel set), one obtains failure for: ur umax,setyuin,set s sbr,st hset hset Ry Ry 2 2 and it results that: umax,setyuin,setsbr,stCRy
D B

where: Econ and ncon are the concrete elastic modulus and Poissons ratio, respectively; tshot is the lining thickness; and sc is the uniaxial strength of the shotcrete. 3.3. Radial anchored bolts (active bolts) The study of a pattern of radial anchored bolts can conveniently be carried out according to Hoek and Brown (1980) (when the bolt length is such as to consider the stress perturbation caused by anchoring negligible). A bolt can be represented by a series of two springs: the first one refers to the stiffness of the bar between the anchorage and the head (free bolt length), while the second one refers to a set of deformational effects due to non- perfect anchorage, inflection and yielding of the washer plate on the tunnel wall during loading. The bolting stiffness is given by the following expression: kbols 1 z 4Lbol StSlx qQ| 2 y pF Est ~
w

(4)

hset E F 2 G

(5)

where the term within the round brackets represents the mean radius of the steel set. 3.2. Shotcrete lining The structural behaviour of the shotcrete lining is evaluated on the basis of the general equation of the radial displacement (Eq. (6)) which is obtained by resolving the differential equation system that governs the stress and strain behaviour of the elastic media in axialsymmetrical conditions: ursArq B r (6)

where: Q is the load-deformation constant for the anchor and head wforcey1=length1 x (Hoek and Brown, 1980); St and Sl are the circumferential spacing and longitudinal spacing; Lbol is the bolt length; F is the bolt diameter; and Est is the elastic modulus for the steel. In this case, pmax is given by Eq. (10), where Tmax is the force that induces yielding of the steel. pmax,bols Tmax StSl (10)

where: ur is the radial displacement in the lining at the distance r and A and B are integration constants. From this equation, using also the definition of the axialsymmetric strain and the constitutive law of the elastic material, taking in consideration the correct boundary conditions (see Appendix 1), one can obtain the stiffness of the shotcrete ring kshot, the maximum pressure that can be applied on its extrados pmax,shot and the radial displacement of the wall related to the shotcrete ring failure umax,shot.
2z w 2 yR yRytshot. ~ Econ 1 kshots w 2z 2 1qncon. y1y2ncon.R qRytshot. ~ R
x |

The collapse of the bolting system occurs when the rupture deformation in the steel br,st is reached (Eq. (11)): umax,bolyuin,bol(Lbolbr,st (11)

(7)

Rytshot. 1 pmax,shots scx1y 2 R2 y

2z

|
~

(8)

umax,shot(uel,shotqbr,conRytshot. 21yncon.RRytshot. pmax,shot y Rytshot.2q1y2ncon.R2 kshot

(9)

Eq. (11) is based on the hypothesis that the bolt anchorage does not undergo any displacement after bolting. This assumption produces a safer bolting design. In the case where the force that causes collapse of the anchorage is lower than the force that induces yielding of the steel, it is advisable to make Tmax equal to the first of the two forces and umax,bolsuel,bol. If the bolts are prestressed with a force T0, the reaction line would assume the form shown in Fig. 3. Stiffness kbol and pmax,bol do not change; uel,bol is defined by the other parameters, as can be seen in Fig. 3: it decreases when Dpbol increases, if uin,bol is considered constant. The radial displacement of the wall that causes collapse of the bolting system, is given by Eq.

350

P.P. Oreste / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 18 (2003) 347363

3.3, the safety factor is, therefore, expressed by Eq. (14)Eq. (16): steel sets:

br,stCRy
Fs,sets
D

hset E F 2 G

ueqyuin,set

(14)

shotcrete lining: ueqGuel: Fs,shot s ueqyuel,shotq

Fig. 3. Reaction line for pre-stressed radial bolts. Key: Dpbol: internal T0 pressure due to the stressing: Dpbols . SlSt

br,conRytshot.
pmax,shot kshot Rytshot. q1y2ncon.R (15)
2 2

21yncon.RRytshot.

ueq-uel,shot: Fs,shot

(12) which takes the pre-stressing deformation into account: 4T0 z umax,bolyuin,bol(Lbolxbr,sty | pF2Est ~ y
w

br,conwRytshot.2q1y2ncon.R2z y ~
x |

2ueqyuin,shot.R1yncon.

radial bolting with anchoring: (12) Fs,bols

br,stLbol 4T0Lbol ueqyuin,bolq pF2Est

(16)

4. The evaluation of support efficiency A support can be considered suitable when: its safety factor concerning the collapse (or sometimes concerning only yielding) is greater than an acceptable minimum value: FsGFs,min; and the wall displacements in equilibrium conditions result to be lower than a given limit in relation to the design criteria of the tunnel: ueqFulim. In the presence of radial bolting, it is acceptable to introduce a third evaluation criterion which prevents the plastic radius in the rock mass from exceeding the anchorage point of the bolts: RplF(RqaLbol), where as0.5y0.75. The safety factor that refers to the support collapse is based on an examination of the maximum principal strain induced at the intrados, for an elastic-perfectly plastic behaviour of the material (Fig. 2):

It is possible to evaluate a maximum allowable wall displacement uamm that defines the range of existence for each single type of analysed support (ueqFuamm) by placing the minimum allowable value of the safety factor (FssFs,min) into Eq. (14)Eq. (16). Frequently, however, the long term performance of supports is not considered acceptable when they overcome elastic limits. In the case of the concrete being in plastic field, in fact, fissuring can arise and decrease the mechanical characteristics of the concrete. It is, therefore, justifiable to impose the elastic behaviour of the lining through the definition of the safety factor that refers to the applied loads p and not to the displacements u: Fss pmax peq (17)

5. Compound support When a compound support that behaves like a linear elastic model is considered, the stiffness of the system is simply given by the sum of the stiffness of each single element in the system: ktots8ki
i

Fss

br max

(13)

where: br is the failure strain of the support material and max is the maximum strain induced in the support. For the supports examined in Sections 3.1, 3.2 and

(18)

P.P. Oreste / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 18 (2003) 347363

351

Fig. 4. Parallel scheme of the support interaction: the total stiffness of the support system in the elastic field is given by simply summing the single stiffnesses.

where: ktot is the total stiffness of the support system and ki is the single support stiffness. The calculation scheme is that of several stiffnesses placed in parallel (Fig. 4). If the supports are assumed to be installed at the same time and at the same distance from the excavation face (uin,isuin), the load pi, which is applied to the generic support i (if it has not reached its elastic limit uel,i) results to be a function of the radial displacement (uyuin) and of its own stiffness ki: piskiuyuin. (19)

Fig. 5. Example of the reaction line of a support system composed of three different types of structures installed at the same time and at the same distance from the face. Key: uin: radial displacement of the wall when the supports are installed; uel,1, uel,2, uel,3: radial displacement of the wall when the elastic limit is reached in the three supports; umax,tot: min i wumax,ix; pmax,tots8pmax,i.
i

6. The stiffness varies as u increases, always on the basis of Eq. (20), but the values of ki are expressed by: kiski for uin,iFu-uel,i; kis0 for u-uin,i and uGuel,i. The load acting on the single generic support i is given by Eq. (22) when uin,iFu-uel,i: piskiuyuin,i. (22)

For u greater than its own elastic limit, the load born by the generic support is equal to pmax,i, according to the specific support type. As u increases, the elastic limit can be reached in some supports and its contribution, in terms of stiffness, result to be zero: ktots8ki
i

(20)

Eq. (21) is still valid in the case shown in Fig. 6.

where: kiski for u-uel,i; and kis0 for uGuel,i. The reaction line of the support system assumes the shape given in Fig. 5, with a progressive reduction of stiffness. If one assumes that the collapse of the support system coincides with the collapse of the weakest element (collapse of the first support), then: umax,totsminiwumax,ix (21)

The umax,tot value, therefore, indicates the end of the reaction line of the support system. In the more usual case, when different supports are installed at different times or at different distances from the excavation face (uin,i/uin,j, for i/j), the reaction line of the whole system can assume the form of Fig.

Fig. 6. Example of a reaction line of a support system composed of three different types of structures installed in the tunnel at different times and at different distances from the excavation face.

352

P.P. Oreste / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 18 (2003) 347363

The definition for the safety factor of the single support is the same as that given in Section 4, as a function of the following: tunnel wall displacement at equilibrium, ueq; displacement on the installation of each single support uin,i; and geometrical and mechanical characteristics of the structure. A maximum admissible wall displacement uadm,tot of the support system can be defined as the minimum value of the maximum admissible wall displacements uadm,i for each single support (uadm,totsmini wuadm,ix); uadm,i is the maximum displacement which guarantees the minimum required safety factor for the generic support: uadm,is

stiffness, the load is, therefore, a function of the distance from the face of the point of installation. Heredown are illustrated, for example, the results of a numerical analysis, using FLAC, of a tunnel 12-m width, 10-m height, 140-m depth, excavated in a weak rock mass (friction angle: 308, cohesion: 0.1 MPa, deformation modulus: 5000 MPa) in which the in situ coefficient of horizontal stress K is equal to 0.5. The mesh is constituted by 12 000 quadrilateral elements and extend 180=140 m. Two support structures were considered: a shotcrete lining 20-cm thick realised close to the face, and double INP 160 steel sets spaced 75 cm, installed at a certain distance from the face. When the shotcrete lining is installed, the radial displacement of the wall is lower than that one with reference to the installation of steel sets. Two cases were considered: firstly, steel sets installed at a short distance (1.5 m) from the face (case a); secondly, steel sets installed at great distance from the face (7 m) (case b). The numerical calculation has confirmed the importance of the distance at which the supports are installed. Table 1 summarises the results for case a and case b. Fig. 7 shows the detail of the mesh of the numerical model adopted to analyse the illustrated problem. Fig. 8 reports the final vertical displacements around the tunnel for case a. From these results it is possible to note that the efficiency of the second support (steel sets) decrease with the distance of the point of installation from the face: the final displacement of the tunnel increase; and final vertical load on the support system decrease. Both the results are quickly estimated through the convergenceconfinement method and the mathematical procedure presented in this paper. 6. A particular case: supports placed inside a shotcrete lining When other supports (for example steel sets or anchored radial bolts) are placed after and inside a shotcrete lining, it is no longer possible to simply sum the individual stiffnesses (as shown in Section 5) to find the global stiffness of the support system. The parallel scheme is in fact no longer suitable. The stiffness of the shotcrete lining, due to the changed
Table 1 Results of the numerical analysis in the studied example Case a Final vertical displacement in the crown Total vertical load on the support system Radial displ. at the installation of shotcrete Radial displ. at the installation of steel sets 4.8 mm 0.20 MPa 2.1 mm 2.5 mm Case b 6.1 mm 0.14 MPa 2.1 mm 3.2 mm

umax,iyuin,i.
Fs,min,i

quin,i

(23)

where: Fs,min,i is the minimum admissible safety factor for the generic support. As an alternative, when it is necessary to guarantee the permanency of each support in the elastic field, uadm,i is defined by the following equation: uadm,is

uel,iyuin,i.
Fs,min,i

quin,i

(24)

A correct design of a support system should be able to specify the single supports and to choose the installation times in such a way that the values of uamm,i are as similar and coinciding as possible or slightly greater than ueq: uamm,i(uamm,jGueq for i/j (25)

The mathematical procedure presented in this section meets the target of an economic design, i.e. preventing some supports from working under safety conditions that are unjustifiably high in comparison to the others. The study developed in this section using the convergenceconfinement method allows one to quantify concepts that engineers encounter in the monitoring data of stresses and displacements in the support structures and in the numerical modelling of tunnels: the loads applied on the support are a function of the stiffness of the support, of the radial displacement of the wall when the support is installed and of the final radial displacement of the wall; and when more than one support are used, (i.e. shotcrete lining and steel sets) the load on each of them depend on the radial displacement of the wall when the single support is installed; for a constant value of the

P.P. Oreste / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 18 (2003) 347363

353

Fig. 7. Detail of the mesh of the numerical method developed to study the illustrated example.

boundary conditions at the intrados, can no longer be calculated using Eq. (7). This situation occurs, for example, using the Mechanical Pre-cutting Method (Bougard, 1988; van Walsum,

1991; Puglisi, 1991), where a shotcrete lining presupport is placed ahead of the excavation face and only later, with the advancement of the excavation face, are steel sets installed. It is not unusual for steel sets and

Fig. 8. Final vertical displacements for case a of the illustrated example.

354

P.P. Oreste / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 18 (2003) 347363

Fig. 9. Typical trends of the reaction line of a concrete lining with internal confinement produced by another support. Key: (a): initial yielding * * of the shotcrete lining (uel-uel); (b): initial yielding of the internal support (uel)uel); uin: displacement of the tunnel wall when the lining is installed; u* : displacement when the internal support is installed; uel : displacement when the yielding of the lining occurs; u* : displacement when in el the yielding of the internal support occurs; umax,tot : displacement when the support system collapses (minimum value between umax and u* ); k: max stiffness of only the lining; ktot: stiffness of the whole support system; k *: stiffness of the internal support; pmax,tot: maximum load that can be reached by the support system.

radial bolts to be installed after and inside a first layer of shotcrete during traditional advancement. The radial pressure at the lining intrados is no longer zero and it is applied by the internal support. Now sro is function of its stiffness k * and of the radial displacement d that develop at the intrados of the lining after the installation of the internal support. sr0sk*d (26)

After the definition of the new integration constants due to the new boundary condition (see Appendix 2), one can obtain the stiffness of the support system ktot (liningqinternal support):

The stiffness of the total system is the same stiffness that the lining has in the absence of internal supports (Eq. (7)), in that it has reached the elastic limit (k *s 0). The lining yielding and collapse verification must be carried out at its intrados where, even in this case, a critical stress condition is reached. On the basis of the contents of this section, it is possible to identify two typical situations according to whether the concrete lining reaches plastic conditions first (uel-u* ) or the internal support reaches plastic el conditions first (uel)uel*). These two different situations are schematically illustrated in Fig. 9.

ktots 21yncon.EconRx
w w z Econ qRytshot.k*| y 1qncon. ~

Ez R F| Econ1y2ncon.R2qRytshot.2xEconq1y2ncon.1qncon.k*tshotC1q D y Rytshot. G~

Econ 1qncon.R

(27)

Having reached the internal support capacity (k*ds p for usu* ), the boundary condition at the intrados el of the lining is no longer represented by Eq. (26) but by Eq. (28):
* max * sr0spmax

6.1. A calculation example In order to verify the importance of a correct interpretation of the structural interaction in the case in which an auxiliary support is installed inside the shotcrete lining, a comparison is made between the typical approach (simplified) which makes use of the parallel stiffness scheme (Section 5) and the more complete approach proposed in Section 6. The analysed example concerns two circular tunnels of 3 and 8.5 m in diameter; the mechanical and geometrical characteristics of the supports are given in Table 2.

(28)

where: p* is the yield strength of the internal support, max calculated according to one of the methods found in Sections 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3, taking its actual geometry into account.

P.P. Oreste / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 18 (2003) 347363 Table 2 Mechanical and geometrical characteristics of the supports used in the calculation example Shotcrete lining Elastic modulus Poisson ratio Uniaxial compressive strength Internal friction angle Maximum principal rupture strain Thickness Minimum admissible safety factor Internal support (HEB 240 steel sets) Elastic modulus Yielding strength of the steel Maximum principal rupture strain Cross-sectional area of the steel section Cross-sectional height of the steel section Steel set spacing along tunnel axis Minimum admissible safety factor Est: 210 000 MPa sst,y: 450 MPa br,st: 0.0050 Aset: 106 cm2 hset: 0.24 m d: 1.2 m Fs,mins1.1 ktot (MPaym) uel (mm) u* (mm) el umax (mm) uamm (mm) Econ: 8000 MPa ncon: 0.15 sc: 16 MPa f: 398 br,con: 0.0045 tshot: 0.25 m Fs,min: 1.3 ktot (MPaym) uel (mm) u* (mm) el umax (mm) uamm (mm) Table 3 Results of the comparison of the two different approaches Tunnel diameter: 3 m Simplified calculation 2469 12.4 14.4 15.6 14.3

355

Proposed approach 2218 15.0 14.5 16.0 14.5

Tunnel diameter: 8.5 m Simplified calculation 241 17.8 24.3 27.9 23.8 Proposed approach 235 18.5 24.5 28.0 24.0

The following values have also been hypothesised: Ds3 m: uins10 mm; u* s12 mm in Ds8.5 m: uins10 mm; u* s16 mm. in The reaction lines of the support systems obtained using the two different approaches are shown in Fig. 10. More details on the results of the comparison are given in Table 3. From an analysis of Fig. 10 and Table 3 one can observe that: the total stiffness of the support system results to be slightly lower for the proposed procedure than for the

simplified calculation: the reduction is greater (10.2%) for the 3-m diameter tunnel, but less important (2.5%) for the 8.5-m diameter tunnel; the displacement at collapse (umax) and those considered to be admissible (uadm) do not significantly vary with the different calculation methods; for the 8.5-m diameter tunnel, the reaction line obtained for the two methods, qualitively speaking, have a similar trend; for the 3-m diameter tunnel, the reaction lines instead have very different trends: when considering the stiffness in parallel one can notice the yielding of the shotcrete lining immediately after the installation of the internal support; the proposed procedure permits one to verify how the concrete lining is in elastic

Fig. 10. Results of the comparison between a complete evaluation of the support system reaction line according to the proposed approach and to the simplified calculation, on the basis of Section 5. The example refers to the mechanical and geometrical conditions summarised in Table 2. Key: (a) tunnel diameter: 3 m; (b) tunnel diameter: 8.5 m; A: installation of the shotcrete lining; B: installation of the internal support; C: yielding of one of the two supports; D: yielding of both supports; and E: collapse of the system.

356

P.P. Oreste / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 18 (2003) 347363

Fig. 11. Definition of the maximum admissible pressure on the system when it is necessary to guarantee that both supports remain in the elastic field (the example refers to the 3 m diameter tunnel). Key: (a): proposed approach; and (b): supports considered to be active in the parallel scheme.

conditions for a larger deformation range, due to the beneficial confinement produced by the internal support; and the evaluation of the extension of the elastic field of the support structures, carried out with the proposed procedure for the 3-m diameter tunnel, shows, as a consequence, that the reaction line reaches the pmax,tot pressure which is obviously greater than that which can be deduced from the simplified calculation (q35.6%). It is, therefore, possible to draw the conclusions that using the proposed procedure for small diameter tunnels, that is, when the boundary conditions of the lining are of greater importance, can favourably influence the design of the support structure. This is even more obvious when, as often happens, it is necessary to guarantee the elastic behaviour of the foreseen supports: the difference between the two reaction curves of Fig. 10a consists not only of different qualitative trends but also of different values of pmax,tot and above all of pressure p in points C (points corresponding to yielding of the first support). The dimensioning should however be based, in these cases, on the maximum admissible pressure padm acting on the support system, calculated starting from the pressure relative to point C: p(C) FS (29)

in Fig. 11b). It is evident that padm is very different in the two cases. 7. The interaction between preliminary supports and the final lining The final lining has the purpose of making a tunnel stable in the long term, when, because of viscosity and weathering of the rock the mechanical characteristics of the rock mass appear to be lower than in the assumed short-term conditions. The final lining, from the moment it is placed, constitutes a further support on the inside of the temporary ones. The global reaction line (temporaryqfinal supports) can be calculated according to the formulation obtained in Section 6. Fig. 12 shows the global reaction line of the supports which is necessary for the evaluation of the loads produced on the final lining and for the study of the interaction between the temporary supports and the final lining. The reaction line of the temporary supports intercepts the short-term ground reaction curve: B represents the equilibrium that occurs before the final lining is cast. The ground reaction curve then moves until it reaches the long-term situation; a further deformative process of the tunnel is now contrasted not only by the temporary supports but by these supports together with the final lining. Point C represents the final equilibrium between the tunnel and the support system when one supposes that the effectiveness of the temporary supports remains unaltered in time. In reality, it is often preferred to neglect the effect of the temporary supports in the long term as it is considered that these may have undergone a chemicalphysical reaction, on direct contact with the rock, so that the

padms

The two curves of Fig. 10a are shown with more detail in Fig. 11 (the reaction line calculated with the proposed procedure in Fig. 11a and that calculated by considering the supports with the simple parallel scheme

P.P. Oreste / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 18 (2003) 347363

357

Fig. 12. Interaction between the temporary supports and the final lining. Key: A: installation of the temporary supports; B: equilibrium point for the temporary supports; C: equilibrium point of the support system (temporary supportsqfinal lining) in the long term; D: equilibrium point for only the final lining in the long term; uin: radial wall displacement on the installment of the temporary supports; ueq,1: radial wall displacement in correspondence to the short term equilibrium point; ueq,2: radial wall displacement in correspondence to the long term equilibrium point; peq,2: final load on the final lining; k1: stiffness of the temporary supports; k2: stiffness of the whole system (temporary supportsqfinal lining); and k3: stiffness of only the final lining.

Fig. 13. Improvement of the strength parameters (generally cohesion) of the rock mass in the plastic field, due to the presence of radial bolts.

field (residual cohesion c*) (Fig. 13) on the basis of the Eq. (30). c*scq 1qsenw Ds3 2cosw (30)

where: Ds3 is the confinement produced by the action of the grouted bolts: Ds3s Tmed StSl

original mechanical properties are altered. On the basis of this second hypothesis, the final equilibrium point results to be D, which is the intersection between the single reaction line of the final lining and the long-term ground reaction curve. It is worthwhile to observe how, even when point C refers to a higher pressure p, the part of the load that weighs directly on the final lining is usually lower than the pressure that refers to point D, as pressure p, in the first case, is distributed over the temporary supports and the final lining. The minimum admissible safety factor required for the final lining varies in function of the hypotheses assumed on the efficiency of the temporary supports in time: it will obviously be lower when the temporary support presence is neglected. 8. The interaction between the ground improvement interventions and the supports When ground improvement techniques are used around the tunnel (passive bolts such as dowels and cemented cables, grouting and freezing of the ground, radial jet-grouting, etc.) together with temporary supports or final lining, the study of the interaction becomes complex and, as a consequence, the designing of the different structural elements becomes difficult. It is possible to effectively face this problem by imagining that the mechanical properties of the rock are improved after the interventions in the reinforced zone. Obviously, the evaluation of the magnitude of such an increase could be difficult but there are some useful indications in literature (Grasso et al., 1989, 1991; Indraratna and Kaiser, 1987): some authors suggest to increase the cohesion value of the rock in the plastic

where Tmed: is the mean force along each bolt; St and Sl: transversal and longitudinal spacing; c and w: cohesion and friction angle of the rock mass. Furthermore, thanks to specific calculation methods (Oreste, 1994; Oreste and Peila, 1996; Pelizza et al., 1994) (Fig. 14), it is possibly to easily obtain the ground reaction curve (Fig. 15) when two different materials co-exist at the boundary of the tunnel: the first material represents the natural rock while the second is the reinforced rock in a concentric zone around the tunnel. The ground reaction curve thus obtained is called

Fig. 14. Calculation scheme for the calculation of the convergence confinement curve in presence of reinforced rock around the tunnel (Oreste, 1994).

358

P.P. Oreste / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 18 (2003) 347363 Table 4 Main characteristics of the Serena tunnel section studied in the calculation example Depth (m) Tunnel radius (m) Thickness of the reinforced zone (m) In situ hydrostatic stress (MPa) 120 6.5 8 4

Fig. 15. Typical ground reaction curve in the presence of rock reinforcing. Key: A: rock improvement interventions; B: yielding of the natural or reinforced rock (loss of linearity); and C: radial wall displacement in the absence of supports.

the ground reaction curve in the presence of rock reinforcing. Once the convergenceconfinement curve has been obtained in the presence of rock reinforcing it is then possible to proceed according to the methods given in the previous sections to evaluate the stress and strain conditions of the support structures. The work conditions of the reinforcement elements or of the improved zones are then evaluated on the basis of the equilibrium pressure peq (Fig. 1) which influences the stress and strain fields of the natural rock and of the reinforced zone. In this way it is also possible to verify, for example, that the plastic radius in the improved zone does not exceed a certain limit in order to prevent compromising the functioning of the completely cemented radial bolts or cables (they should, in fact, have an adequate anchorage length in the elastic rock). The

Fig. 16. Trend of the plastic radii in the natural rock and in the reinforced zone as a function of the internal pressure applied by the supports (peq). Key: A: yielding in the reinforced zone; B: yielding in the natural rock; and C: complete yielding of the reinforced zone.

plastic radii in the two different materials result to be direct functions of pressure peq applied by the supports onto the tunnel walls (Fig. 16). An example of the application of the convergence confinement concept in the presence of rock reinforcing has been carried out for a real case for which convergence measurements were available: the Serena tunnel near La Spezia (Grasso et al., 1989, 1990, 1991). The Serena tunnel, which is part of the Nuovo Itinerario Ferroviario Pontremolese (The New Pontremolese Railway Itinerary) which connects La Spezia to Parma, is a double track tunnel (excavation section of approx. 110 m2, 13-m span) of a total length of 7 km and a maximum depth of 500 m. The tunnel progresses along geological formations that are distinguished by poor geomechanical characteristics and which can be defined as structuraly complex due to the marked lithological and structural inhomogeneity. From a geomechanical point of view, the ground under examination prevalently belongs to Bieniawskis IV and V technical classes (Bieniawski, 1984). Tunnelling was carried out using hydraulic hammers or simply with excavators. A reinforcement intervention of the rock was carried out in a section of approximately 1 km, in a clay and calcarous formation (passive cables cemented along the full length in 51-mm diameter bore-holes with a final strength equal to 45 t, quincunx placed with a 1=1 m spacing) as soon as a high convergence velocity was encountered (3 cmyday), this problem being difficult to solve in any other manner. The intervention entailed the placing of radial reinforcing elements of a length similar to the hypothesised plastic radius (approx. 12 m) at the tunnel border from a pilot tunnel and from the large radius section. These elements were able to exercise a coaction effect on the rock and, therefore, to mobilise a remarkable additional strength. The ground reaction curve was determined in the presence of rock reinforcing for a particular section (progressive length: 6600 m) with a depth of 120 m, according to the criterion shown in this section. The main characteristics of the studied section are shown in Table 4. The mechanical parameters of the natural rock and of the reinforced zone used in the calculation are summarised in Table 5. The ground reaction curves, in the absence and in the presence of rock reinforcements, and the mean value of the convergence measured in concomitance with the support structures that apply an internal pressure of

P.P. Oreste / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 18 (2003) 347363

359

Table 5 Mechanical and strength parameters (according to Hoek and Browns strength criterion) for the natural rock and for the reinforced zone of the Serena tunnel Mechanical and strength parameters Elastic modulus E (MPa) Peak strength parameter m Peak strength parameter s Residual strength parameter m Residual strength parameter s Uniaxial compressive strength sc (MPa) Deformation parameter f in plastic conditions Natural rock 800 0.4 0.001 0.35 0.00025 3.48 1 Reinforced zone 800 0.4 0.001 0.502 0.0305 3.48 1

approximately 0.13 MPa to the walls are given in Fig. 17. An analysis of the graph permits one to notice a good agreement between the calculation results and the in situ measured values. 9. Conclusions The interaction of support structures in tunnels has been studied in this work through the use of the convergenceconfinement method. After having recalled the equations that characterize the behaviour of the most important support types usually used, the equations that permit one to obtain the loads which are applied to the different supports simultaneously present in a tunnel, have been obtained. Two different criteria for the evaluation of the safety factors of each single support have been proposed: one is based on the strain level and is of general validity; the other is based on the analysis of the stresses and should be used in all those cases in which one wishes to avoid the plastic conditions in one or all the supports. In both cases, it is possible to calculate the maximum admissible radial wall displace-

ments connected to the minimum admissible safety factor for each single support. The maximum admissible displacement for each support results to be very useful for a correct design, from the economic point of view, and is able to avoid injustifiable high values of the safety factors of some structures in comparison to others. A case, which does not fit into the usual rock-support interaction schemes, was also analysed: an auxiliary support is placed inside a concrete lining (for example, a presupport ahead of the faceqsteel sets). The complete analysis has shown how the global stiffness of the system results to be slightly lower than that obtained using the traditional approach (stiffnesses in a parallel scheme), while the interval of elastic behaviour of the concrete lining is considerably more extended for small diameter tunnels, producing a trend of the global reaction line that is basically different from the traditional approach. Finally, the interaction between temporary supports and a final lining was studied in depth with the usually used calculation hypotheses and reference was made to the interaction between the support structures and rock improving works around the tunnel excavation through an approach concerning the ground reaction curve in the presence of rock reinforcing. Appendix 1: Definition of the mechanical parameters of the shotcrete lining The structural behaviour of the shotcrete lining is evaluated on the basis of the general equation of the radial displacement Eq. (A1.1) which is obtained by resolving the differential equation system that governs the stress and strain behaviour of the elastic media in axialsymmetrical conditions: ursArq B r (A1.1)

Fig. 17. Comparison between the ground reaction curve of the tunnel in the presence and absence of rock reinforcements and the mean value of the in situ measured radial wall displacements.

where: ur is the radial displacement in the lining at the distance r and A and B are integration constants. By using Eq. (A1.1) and from the definition of the axialsymmetric strain one can calculate the radial and

360

P.P. Oreste / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 18 (2003) 347363

uyuin,shot.sARq

B R

BsRwuyuin,shot.yARz y ~
x |

(A1.8)
w

0sC Ay
y w

w z Ryuyuin,shot.yAR~
x |

Rytshot.2
x

|qD
~

Fig. 18. Geometric loading scheme of a shotcrete lining. Key: r: generic radial coordinate; R: tunnel radius; p: pressure acting on the lining extrados; sro: radial stress at the intrados.

Aq
y

Rwuyuin,shot.yAR y

zz ~
|

Rytshot.2

|
~

(A1.9)

circumferential strains Eq. (A1.2) and Eq. (A1.3) (positive if it is a compression strain) and the stresses on the inside of the lining vs. the distance r Eq. (A1.6) and Eq. (A1.7) from the constitutive law of the elastic material Eq. (A1.4) and Eq. (A1.5): dur w Bz rs sxAy 2 | dr y r ~ ur w Bz qs sxAq 2 | r y r ~ (A1.2)

Asx

z 1y2ncon.R | uyuin,shot.; 2 2 y Rytshot. q1y2ncon.R ~ w

Bsx Ryt
y

RRytshot.2
shot

.2q1y2ncon.R2 ~

|uyu

in,shot

.
(A1.10)

(A1.3)

rs

1 w 2 2 1yncon.srynconqncon.sqz ~ Econ y
x | x |

By substituting the constants A and B obtained from Eq. (A1.10) in Eq. (A1.2) and Eq. (A1.3) and these last two equations in Eq. (A1.7), one obtains the expression of the radial stress for rsR (p) vs. the radial wall displacement after installation of the lining (uy uin,shot): pskshotuyuin,shot. where:

(A1.4)
2z w 2 yR yRytshot. ~ Econ 1 kshots w (A1.11) 2z 2 1qncon. y1y2ncon.R qRytshot. ~ R
x |

1 w 2 qs nconyn2 .sqynconqncon.srz con ~ Econ y sqsCqqDr srsCrqDq where: Cs Ds

(A1.5) (A1.6) (A1.7)

1yncon. Econ; 1y2ncon.nconq1.

where: kshot is the stiffness of the shotcrete ring. Pmax is obtained, in this case, by taking the sq,max maximum circumferential stress at the intrados equal to sc (the uniaxial compression strength of the shotcrete); sq,max Eq. (A1.12) is calculated as follows: determining expression (uyuin,shot) from Eq. (A1.11) in function of p and substituting this in Eq. (A1.10); and evaluating Eq. (A1.2) and Eq. (A1.3) at the lining intrados (for rsRytshot) and substituting these in Eq. (A1.6). sq,maxssq(rsRytshot)sV Vs2 p kshot where:

ncon Econ; and Econ and ncon are 1y2ncon.nconq1. the concrete elastic modulus and Poissons ratio, respectively. The boundary conditions around the lining ring (Fig. 18) are: 1. rsR: uRs(uyuin,shot): the displacement of the extrados is equal to the displacement of the tunnel wall after the installation of the lining; and 2. rs(Rytshot): sros0: the internal pressure acting on the intrados is zero. One obtains Eq. (A1.8) and Eq. (A1.9) from Eq. (A1.1) and Eq. (A1.7), which give the A and B constants Eq. (A1.10).

Econ R w 1qncon. y1y2ncon.R2qRytshot.2z ~

x |

(A1.12) By making sq,max Eq. (A1.12) equal to sc and by simplifying one obtains:

P.P. Oreste / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 18 (2003) 347363

361

Rytshot. 1 pmax,shots scx1y 2 R2 y

2z

|
~

(A1.13)

Failure will occur when the circumferential compressive strain at the intrados attains the failure value br,con:

where: A * and B * are integration constants due to the changed boundary conditions and are still unknown. At the moment of installing the internal support (us u* on the tunnel wall), the increase of the thickness of in the lining is given by the following equation: Duin*sxA(usuin*)Rytshot.q
y w

q,maxsq(rsRytshot)(x
y

21yncon.R

B(usuin*) z | Rytshot. ~ (A2.4)

Rytshot.2q1y2ncon.R2 ~ uel,shotyuin,shot. umax,shotyuel,shot. q sbr,con Rytshot.

yxA(usuin*)Rq
y

B(usuin*) z | R ~

from which: umax,shot(uel,shotqbr,conRytshot. 21yncon.RRytshot. y Rytshot.2q1y2ncon.R2 pmax,shot kshot

where: A and B are integration constants of the lining alone Eq. (A1.10), for usu* . in Finally, by substituting Eq. (A2.3) and Eq. (A2.4) in Eq. (A2.2) and by simplifying one obtains the required d expression, which is a function of the A * and B * integration constants and of the radial wall displacement u: dsuyu* .qytshotA*qlB*. in yytshotA(usuin*)qlB(usuin*). where: ls tshot RRytshot. (A2.6) (A2.5)

(A1.14)

Appendix 2: Evaluation of the mechanical parameters of the system composed by shotcrete lining and another internal support (steel sets) Pressure sro (Fig. 18) is, in this case, no longer zero and it is applied by the internal support in function of its stiffness k * and of the radial displacement d that develop at the intrados of the lining after the installation of the internal support. sr0sk*d (A2.1)

The boundary condition at the intrados is now represented by the following new relations: rs(Rytshot): sr0sk*d The two boundary conditions (at the intrados and at the extrados) lead one to obtain Eq. (A2.7) and Eq. (A2.8) which take the place of Eq. (A1.8) and Eq. (A1.9).

d is obtained by the following equation:

uyuin.sA*Rq
dsuyu* .qDuyDuin*. in (A2.2)
w

B* B*sRwuyuin.yA*Rz y ~ R (A2.7)
x |

where: Du is the increase of the thickness of the lining corresponding to displacement u of the tunnel wall; Duin* is the increase of the thickness of the lining on installation of the internal support (displacement of the tunnel wall equal to u* ). in The increase of the thickness of the lining with the increase of the displacement (uyuin) at the extrados (uin being the displacement of the wall on installation of the lining) is given by the following equation obtained from Eq. (6), as the difference between the radial intrados and extrados displacements: B* z w * B* z DusxA*Rytshot.q |yxA Rq | R~ y Rytshot. ~ y
w

sr0sk dsC A y
y w

Rwuyuin.yA*Rz y ~
x |

Rytshot.2
x

|qD
~

Aq
y

Rwuyuin.yA*R y
*

zz ~
|

Rytshot.2

|
~

(A2.8)

By substituting Eq. (A2.5) with Eq. (A2.6) in Eq. (A2.8), one obtains the following expression of A * (B * is given by Eq. (A2.7), A * being known):
* A*sbuyuin.qguinyuin.

(A2.9)

(A2.3)

where:

362

P.P. Oreste / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 18 (2003) 347363

1y2ncon.Rw1qncon.Rytshot.k*qEconz y ~
x |

bs

Econ1y2ncon.R2qRytshot.2xEconq1y2ncon.1qncon.k*tshotC1q
y

B D

Ez R F| Rytshot. G~

1y2ncon.1qncon.Rytshot.k*Rx1y
y

gsy

1y2ncon.tshot2Rytshot. z | Rytshot.2q1y2ncon.R2 ~
B D Ez R F| Rytshot. G~

Econ1y2ncon.R2qRytshot.2xEconq1y2ncon.1qncon.k*tshotC1q
y

In the same way as in Section 3.2, the new integration constants A * and B * being known, it is now possible to obtain the expression of pressure p (radial stress at the extrados) in function of displacement u: CyD z psx2Cby |uyuin.qw2Cgxu* yuin. in R ~ y (A2.10) By deriving Eq. (A2.10), with respect to displacement u, and by developing the known terms, one finally obtains the stiffness of the support system ktot (liningq internal support):
w

* sr0spmaxsC A*y
y w

Rwuyuin.yA*Rz y ~
x |

Rytshot.2
z
x |

|qD
(A2.13)

A *q
y

Rwuyuin.yA*Rz y ~

Rytshot.2

|
~

By resolving Eq. (A2.13) one obtains the new expression for A * (B * is also now given by Eq. (A2.7), as A * is known):
* A*shuyuin.qmpmax

(A2.14)

21yncon.EconRx ktots
w

z Econ qRytshot.k*| y 1qncon. ~

Ez R F| Econ1y2ncon.R2qRytshot.2xEconq1y2ncon.1qncon.k*tshotC1q D y Rytshot. G~

Econ 1qncon.R

(A2.11)

Having reached the internal support capacity (k*ds p for usu* ), the boundary condition at the intrados el of the lining is no longer represented by Eq. (A2.1) but by Eq. (A2.12):
* max

where:

1y2ncon.R Rytshot.2q1y2ncon.R2 1y2ncon.1qncon.Rytshot.2 1 ms Rytshot.2q1y2ncon.R2 Econ

hs The new A * and B * parameters permit one to obtain the p expression in function of the displacement u at the extrados; deriving expression p Eq. (A2.10) with respect to u, it is possible to obtain the same stiffness that the lining has in the absence of internal supports (Eq. (7)), in that it has reached the elastic limit (k *s 0). The new parameters are also necessary for the evaluation of the stresses and strains in the lining for * the u greater than uel.

* sr0spmax

(A2.12)

where: p* is the yield strength of the internal support, max calculated according to one of the methods found in Sections 3.1 and 3.2 and Section 3.3, taking its actual geometry into account. While Eq. (A2.7) is still valid, Eq. (A2.8) is now substituted by Eq. (A2.13):

P.P. Oreste / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 18 (2003) 347363

363

The u* displacement of the tunnel wall which causes max collapse of the internal support is evaluated starting from the dmax displacement at the lining intrados (from Eq. (A2.5)) which induces a principal strain in the support that is equal to the failure strain (paragraph 4). u* Is the maximum displacement that guarantees the amm minimum required safety factor for the internal support. The verification of the yielding and collapse of the lining must be carried out at the intrados where, even in this case, a critical stress condition is reached. The circumferential stress and strain at the intrados are calculated making rsRytshot, with Eq. (A1.6) and Eq. (A1.3) (with A and B or A * and B * calculated on the basis of Eq. (A1.10) for an internal support that is not yet active, or with Eq. (A2.9) and Eq. (A2.7) for an internal support in elastic conditions or finally with Eq. (A2.14) and Eq. (A2.7) for internal support in plastic conditions); the radial stress, when different from zero, is calculated with Eq. (A2.1), Eq. (A2.5) and Eq. (A2.6) (internal support in elastic conditions) or with Eq. (A2.12) (internal support in plastic conditions). If one hypothesises that the MohrCoulomb strength criterion is valid for concrete, the maximum principal stress (circumferential stress) at the intrados sq,max, which induces yielding in the lining, is a function of the minimum principal stress sr0 (radial stress), of the uniaxial compression strength sc and of the internal friction angle F, according to the well-known Eq. (A2.15). sq,maxsscqC
B 1qsinf E D 1ysinf G

meters A * and B * are evaluated for usuel. The stiffness of the support system, once the lining is in a yielding condition, is given only by the stiffness of the internal support. References
A.F.T.E.S., 1993 Groupe de travail n.7Soutenement et revetement, Emploi de la methode convergenceconfinement, Tunnels et ouv rages souterrains, Supplement au n. 117, MajJuin, pp. 118205. Bieniawski, Z.T., 1984. Rock Mechanics Design in Mining and Tunnelling. Balkema, Rotterdam. Bougard, J.F., 1988. The mechanical pre-cutting method. Tunnell. Underground Space Technol. 3, 163167. Bouvard-Lecoanet, A., Colombet, G., Esteulle, F., 1988. Ouvrages Souterrains: Conception, Realisation, Entretien. Presses de Lecole Nationale des Ponts et Chaussees, Paris. Brown, E.T., Bray, J.W., Ladanyi, B., Hoek, E., 1983. Ground response curves for rock tunnels. J. Geotech. Eng. 109, 1539. Grasso, P., Mahtab, A., Pelizza, S., 1989. Riqualificazione della massa rocciosa: un criterio per la stabilizzazione delle gallerie. Gallerie Grandi Opere Sotterranee 29, 3541. Grasso P., Mahtab A., Pelizza S., Russo G., 1990 On the geotechnical and tunnel construction problems in the La SpeziaParma rail link in Italy, Tunnel and Underground Works Today and Future, ITA Annual Meeting, Chengdu, pp. 4148. Grasso P., Russo G., Mahtab A., Pelizza S., Zanello C., 1991 Una riuscita applicazione del criterio di rinforzo della roccia in galleria, Il Consolidamento del Suolo e delle Rocce nelle Realizzazioni in Sotterraneo, Milano, pp. 139148. Hoek, E., Brown, E.T., 1980. Underground Excavations in Rock. The Institution of Mining and Metallurgy, London, pp. 527. Indraratna, B., Kaiser, P.K., 1987. Control of tunnel convergence by grouted bolts. Proc. Rapid Excavation Tunnell. Conf. 1, 329348. Lombardi, G., 1975. Qualche aspetto particolare della statica delle cavita sotterranee. Rivis. Italiana Geotec. 9, 187206. Oreste, P.P., 1994. Comportamento di bulloni passivi in galleria: un nuovo modello di simulazione. Gallerie Grandi Opere Sotterranee 44, 3241. Oreste P.P. and Peila D., 1996 Radial passive rockbolting in tunnelling design with a new convergenceconfinement model, in: Inter. J. Rock Mech. Mining Sci. 33(5), 443454, Elsevier Science Ltd., London, UK. Oreste P.P., 2003. A procedure for determining the reaction curve of the shotcrete lining considering transient conditions, Rock Mech. Rock Eng., under publishing in 2003. Panet, M., Guenot, A., 1982. Analysis of convergence behind the face of a tunnel. Proc. Tunnell. Brighton 82, 197204. Panet M., 1995. Le calcul des tunnels par la methode convergence confinement, Presses de Lecole Nationale des Ponts et Chaussees, Paris. Peila, D., Oreste, P.P., 1995. Axisymmetrical Analysis of Ground Reinforcing in Tunnelling Design, Computer and Geotechnics, Vol. 17. Elsevier Science Ltd, London, UK, pp. 253274. Pelizza S., Peila D., Oreste P.P., 1994 A new approach for ground reinforcing design in tunnelling, Tunnell. Ground Cond., Il Cairo (Egitto), pp. 517522. Puglisi, R., 1991. Le predecoupage mecanique. Tunnels Ouvrages Souterrains 108, 269279. van Walsum, E., 1991. Mechanical precutting, a rediscovered tunneling technique. Rock Mech. Rock Eng. 24, 6579.

Fsr0

(A2.15)

By making Eq. (A2.15) equal to Eq. (A1.6) (adopting the opportune integration constants, as already seen) it is possible to calculate the displacement of the tunnel wall uel for which yielding of the lining occurs while, if one makes Eq. (A1.3) equal to the principal rupture strain br,con, one obtains the wall displacement umax which produces collapse of the lining. uamm is the maximum displacement that guarantees the minimum required safety factor of the lining. As, in this case, the concrete is usually shotcrete, it is necessary to carefully evaluate both the value of the elastic modulus and the strength parameters (c and F) as these vary in time after installation: it is necessary to adopt mean parameters during loading of the structure (Oreste, 2003). It is, however, useful to proceed with a parametric analysis in order to be able to evaluate the importance of the uncertainty on these parameters. The displacement at the intrados for u)uel is always calculated with Eq. (A2.5) but, in this case, the para-