RESEARCH

Convergence-Confinement Method
in Shallow Tunnels
Z. Eisenstein and P. Branco

Abstract TheapplicationoftheConvergence-Confinementmethod ~ n examine ici l'utilisation de la rn~hode Conoer~nce-

(C.-C. method) to design of shallow tunnels is investigated by Confinement (m~thode C-C) sur des modelss de tunmls en surface en
comparing results of the method with field measurements for two comparant lss r(,sultatsde estte rm~thodeaux mesures sur le terrain dans
tunnels in stiff clay in Edmonton, CanadcL Both tunnels were ls oasede deux tunnels en argile dure a EMmonton au Canad~ Les deux
excavated under very similar conditions. The only important tunnels ont c~ cmus~s dane des conditionst~s g~Jaires. La seule
difference between them was the depth-to.diameter ratio. Because of diff~rvwe notable entre lss deux oonommit le rapport profondeur-
this ratio, the two tunnels exhibited different responses to analyses ~ . A eausede cerapport, les deux tunnels ontpruebdt des ~ponees
by the C.-C. method. The deep tunnel showed a good agreement d i f ~ v ~ aux analyses ~ , avecla m~thode C.-C Dane ls cas du
between the analysis and field data; the shallow tunnel did not. This tunnel en profondeur, les analyses et les d o n n ~ sur ls terrain ont bien
discrepancy was attributed to the non-axisymmetric mode of coneord~;maiscenefutpaslsoaspourletunnelensurfac~ Ced~alage
deformation developed around the shallow tunnel. a ~ attribu~ au mode de ~ n n o n ~ &~op#
autour du tunnel en surface.

Introduction structure interaction by an indepen- published. Brown et al. (1983) pre-

A number of methods are cur-
rently used for design and
analysis of tunnels. A m o n g
them, the convergence-confinement
method (C.-C. method) has played an
important role in provi~ng in~ght into
the interaction between lining support
and the surrounding ground m , ~ . The
method is relatively a~mgle, easy to use,
and can readily indicate the sensitivity of
the chosen solution through a range of
possibleg~mndparametem, supportch~-
acteristicsand modes ofinstallatio~
However, to m - l n t a i n simplicity, a
number of simplifying assumptions are
employed in its derivation. These as-
sumptious make the method applicable
only to deep tunnels in a hydrostatic
stress field; and, therefore, the use of
the C.-C. method in shallow tunnels is
open to question. The main purpose of
this paper is to discuss this problem.
The discussion is based on field data
obtained from two tllnnels constructed
in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
The Convergence-Confinement
Method (C.-C. Method)
The C.-C. method is based on a con-
cept t h a t involves analysis of ground
Present address: Prof. Z. Eisenstein,
Department ofCivil Engineering, University
ofAlberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada; Dr.
P. Branco, Thurber Consultants Ltd.,
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
This paper is reprinted with permission
from Canadian Tunnelling Canadien 1990.
dent study of the behaviour of the
ground and of the t - n n e l support. The
ground behaviour is represented by a
ground reaction curve (GRC); the lin-
ing is represented by a support reac-
tion curve (SRC). The former describes
the ground convergence in t e r m s of the
applied confining pressure; the latter
relates the confining pressure acting
on the lining to its deformation. The
solution for the ground support inter-
action is then given b y t h e intersection
of these two curves, as illustrated in
Figure 1.
In the past, a number of approaches
for determining the G R C have been
F~ELASI|C, Y|ELOING ~ ~ /I~ / / ~
grounCl support
T|DN CURVE
DELAY Ui
Figure 1. Concept o f soil structure
interaction by the Convergence-
Confinement methovL
sented a s u m m a r y of the characteristic
features of each of the main formula-
tions derived in the past 40 years.
Alarge n - m h e r of solutions for SRC
also have been published. SRCs are
determined, on the basis of the theory
of elasticity, from the ]inlng stiffness,
load capacity, and the displacement
that occurs before the lining activa-
tion, as indicated in Figure 1. The
support stiffness is defined as the
uniform all-around pressure required
to cause unit diametral swain on the
lining. Support stiff~esses and support
bearing capacity for different liners
have been presented by Lombardi
(1973) and Hoek and Brown (1981).
The idealization of the ground sup-
port interaction by the two reaction
curves, obtained from closed form solu-
tions, is only valid for the two-dlmen-
sional cylindrical model in which, ir-
respective of the lining and ground
mechanical properties, the soil and
support follow the same radial mode of
deformation. This is a major limitation
of the method with regard to shallow
tunnels, because the proximity of a
free surface above the tlmnel, a non-
hydrostatic stress field (Ko~ 1), and the
effects of gravity around the t~mnel
cannot be included in the analysis.
A review of other available lining
design methods, presented by Branco
(1981), has indicated t h a t there is no
simple design method for shallow
tlm~eis.
The applicability ofthe C.-C. method
is investigated below, with special re-

Tunnelling and UndergroundSpace Technology, Vol. 6, No. 3, pp. 343-346, 1991. 0886-7798/91 $3.00 + .00
Printed in Great Britain. (~) 1991 Pergamon Press plc 343
gard to the influence of a free surface Table 1. Lining and ground parameters for the LRT-SE and EXP Tunnels.
above the tunnel.
EXP Tunnel LRT-SETunnel
C.-C. Method of Lining Design (after (after Branco
of Shallow Tunnels in Stiff Soils EI-Nahhas 1981)
The construction of two t~mnels in
1980)
the city of Edmonton, Alberta, Canada,
permitted the use of the C.-C. method Young's Modulus (MPa) 75 150
to analyze the effect of the free surface
on the prediction of tunnel behaviour.
The tunnels were extensively instru- Polsson's Ratio 0.4 0.4
mented for ground displacements and
lining loads. Both tunnels were exca-
vated in the Edmonton till, using very Coefficientof Dilatancy 1 1
similar construction methods.
The first tunnel, the experimental
t , nnel (EXP t-nnel), was comprehen- Friction Angle (degrees) 30 40
sively studiedby E1-NAhhas (1980) and .= (Effective)
Eisenstein et al. (1980 and 1981). It is Q

a small-diameter tunnel (D = 2.56 m)

driven by a full-face TBM at a depth of
i Cohesion(MPa) 0 0
(Effective)
27 m to the t - n n e l centre line. The
primary lining of one of the sections of
the EXP t~mnel comprises segmented BeforeFace 4 0
steel ribs (WF100 x 19), 1.5 m from
centre to centre, and 5 x 20-cm timber
lagging placed between the webs of the
ribs. The rib and lagging system was
"
~} • ~" ¢
"~ E o.
~" ~ ~"~m
I Before
I Expansion
I
Expa
19 2.5
assembled within the shield ofthe TBM. F , ~¢gQt - I"
¢,'-
The drilllngmachinewas then advanced = • c ~ I After
by jacking ags;n~t the ribsofthe tempo- oB= ~ i Expansion 2.5 0.5
rary lining. W h e n the T B M advanced
sufficientlythat the rib emerged from
the shield, the rib was expanded by Young's Modulus (MPa) 207000 207000
hydraulicjacks and 10-cm spacerswere
placed in the two upper joints of the
steelrib.The next rib-laggingassembly Poisson's Ratio 0.25 0.25
was placed in the shield and the dr;lllng
operation continued.
The second bmnel, the LRT-South Moment of Inertia ( m ) 4.76 x 10 22.2 x 10
Extension (LRT-SE) tu-nel, has been
m
extensively analyzed by Branco (1981).
It is a large-diameter t - n n e l (D = 6.1 Cross-Section Area ( m ) 24.7 x 10 47.3 x 10
m) driven, like the experimental tun- E
nel, by a shielded TBM, with the tun-
nel centre line at a depth of 11.8 m. The z Rib Spacing (m) 1.5 1.2
primary lining of the LRT-SE tunnel is e-
,m
composed of segmented steel ribs (W6 e-
.m
x 25), 1.22 m centre to centre, and 10 x .J Diameter (m) 2.56 6.1
15-cm timber lagging between webs of
successive ribs. Installation of this
t~mhells slm;l ar to that described above Final Radial Load at the
Spdngline (Pi/Po) 3.02 to 0.12 0.18 to 0.24
for the EXP tunnel.
Table 1 summarizes the lining and
ground parameters related to the two
tunnels that are used throughout the
calculations in this paper. assumption of whether the t~mnels are action for the EXP t , nnel than for the
Both tunnels were excavated under deep or shallow was based on the ex- LRT-SE t , nnel.
an approximately hydrostatic stress pected development of t a n g e n t i a l ~igures 2 and 3 present the ground
field ( K =1.0). The difference in the stresses in the ground at the tunnel reaction curves for the EXP tunnel and
depth ratio (depth of the centre of the wall, as proposed by Mindlin (1940). for the LRT-SE tunnel, respectively.
tlmnel to the tunnel diameter) of the Excluding three-d~rnensional and These curves were derived according
LRT-SE tunnel and the EXP tunnel is gravity effects inherent in any t-nnel to the formulation presented by Kaiser
the most important difference between construction, the EXP tunnel filiRll~ (1980) for a circular opening excavated
all of the boundary conditions associ- in a material that is assumed to be
the two t-nnels. Otherwise the tun-
nels are quite comparable, particularly ated with the C.-C. method. On the linearly elastic, brittle-perfectly plas-
in terms of host ground and lining ether hand, for the LRT-SE ~mnel, in tic, with yield surfaces described by the
method. The EXP tunnel has a depth addition to three-dlmensional and grav- Coulomb failure criterion.
ratio of 10.56, and will be regarded as ity effects, the proximity of the free Three different points of equilib-
a deep tunnel, whereas the LRT-SE surface violates the imposed boundary rium for the ground-support interface
t - n nel has a depth ratio of 1.9 and will conditions. This indicates that the C.- are shown in Figures 2 and 3 for both
be considered as a shallow t-nnel. The C method should better predict the t~mnels: they are Ea, Eb, and Ec.
behaviour of the ground-support inter-

344 TUm~.T.T.n~GANDUNDEROROUSDSPACETECHNOLOGY Volume 6, Number 3, 1991


a. 0.9
I Lake Edmonton
08
0.7
zo
EX,~TUNNE
U ~e : (m-I)/(m-i-I) :0.5
0.5
Q,.
04
_Z
.J
o O3
u~ 0 2
~: O.t
SR C - ~ J ~
0 1 t I
X J 2 3
INTERFACE (SOIL-LINING) DISPLACEMENT/ELASTIC WALL DISPLACEMENT
OF UNLINED TUNNEL - - U / Uo*
Figure 2. Convergence-Confinement (C.-C.) method at the springline of the EXP
Tunnel.
Point Ea
Ea is the point of equilibrium de-
fined by the intersection of the theo-
retical ground reaction and the sup-
port reaction curves. The plot of the
SRCs shown in Figures 2 and 3 re-
quires a knowledge of the compressive
stiffness of the support and of the
ground displacement close to the
ground-support interface, which takes
place before the l l n l n g expansion. In
this paper, the latter is obtained by the
sum of two ground displacements:
1. Ground displacements that take
place ahead of the face of the bmneh
assumed to be one-third of the elastic
wail displacement of the unlined tun-
nel (l~q-ken and Ghaboussi 1975).
2. Ground displacements that take
place along the length of the TBM
shield: assumed to be one-half of the
difference between the excavated di-
ameter and the diameter of the ex-
panded primary lining.
Branco (1981) presented a detailed
estimation ofthe displacements for both
the t|mnels.
Point Eb
Eb is another point of equih'brium
definedby the intersection ofthe ground
reaction and the support reaction
curves. T h e differencebetween Ea and
Eb is in the ground displacement that
is allowed to take place before the lin-
ing is expande& In order to find Ea,
the ground displacement that takes
place before the lln~ng expansion was
estimated without t~k~ng into account
any information derived from the tun-
Volume 6, Number 3, 1991
Point Ec
Ec is the range of points of equilib-
rium obtained from the lln;n~ and v
ground instrumentation, as presented
E = 75 MPo
byE1-Nahhas (1980) and Braneo (1981).
Sediments V = O. 4 The loads and displacement ratios
Upper Till C =0
defining ECare related to t h e slprJng]ine
~p =30 ° ofthe bmnele because a more complete
Lower Till (3( = I (coefficient of dilotancy} sot of field data was available at this
m : ton 2 ( 4 5 + ( ~ / 2 ) =3.0 location. In addition, the gravity ef-
fects, which are not taken into account
Ko =l(Stress Field) in the C.-C method, are mlnim;,ed at
this location and thus can be neglected.
It is relevant to mention that for
both bl-nele, the displacements asso-
ciated with Ec were obtained at a dis-
tance of appro~mately one-quarter of
the bin-el diameter from the support
springline. This means that the true
Ec values at the ground-support should
be shifted to the right of the Ec shown
- in Figures 2 and 3, because the closer
I I I ' to the t-nnel walls, the larger are the
4 5 6 radial ground displacements.
The analysis ofthe points ofequilib-
rium, Ea and Ec, plotted for the ground-
support interface of the EXP t~mnel on
Figure 2, indicates that thrusts and
Hnlng displacements were reasonably
well predicted by the C.-C method.
On the other hand, the comparison
nel instr~mentation. On the other between Ea and Ec, shown in Figure 3
hand, the plot of the SRC that defines for the LRT-SE t~mnel, indicates that
the point of equilibrium Eb is based on the C.-C. method predicted loads and
the measured ground displacements displacements completely different
that take place before the l l n l n g expan- from t h o s e measure& After the mea-
sion. These displacements, obtained sured ground displacements that took
from field instrumentation, were pre- place ahead of the lining expansion are
sented by Branco (1981) and are sum- taken into account and when the SRC
mArized in Table 1. is positioned along the horizontal axis
0.9 ,t E = 150 M P a
--" r \ o i LRT South- k'~ Lake Edmonton v = 0.4
0.8 I-\ 51 Bound Tunnel ~;;~Sediment c =0
z~..~1'~0 /\
0.7 I" \
lOl 6
151
~/~ Upper T~II
r~ Lower Till
~o = 40 °
a = 1 (coefficient of dilatancy)
~ Saskatchewan
m tan 2 (45 +0/2 = 4.6
" ":'.-
~O,, 0 . 6 F / \\ 2° I
25 M sands & Gravel
Ze = (m-1)/(m + 1) = 0.64
/\ ko = I(Stress Field)
.--=""===°" tEB
•• 03 f___./_ii\
L
°"
EA
I I ;J ~._
Xel 2 3 4 5 6
Interface (Soil-lining) Dispalcement / Elastic Wall
D i s p l a c e m e n t o f U n l i n e d T u n n e l --U/Uoe
Figure 3. Convergence-Confinement (C.-C.) method at the springline of the
LRT-SE Tunnel.
TUNN~T.T.T~a~ U~'VF~m~OUNDSPACET~C~OLO~ 845
of Figure 3, the new point of equilib-
rium, Eb, is much closer to Ec. This
shows that a much better prediction of
the llnln~ behaviour is obtained, and
indicates that the discrepancy between
measured (Ec) and expected (Ea) loads
and lining displacements basically re-
sults from the inaccurate estimation of
ground displacements ahead of the
lining activation.
The i n a c c u r a t e a s s e s s m e n t of
ground displacements t h a t take place
before the lining expansion is m~inly
attributed to the non-axisymmetric
mode of deformation around shallow
t , nnels, even in the case where the
initial stress field ration (Ko) is ap-
proximately equal to 1. This conclu-
sion is confirmed b y t h e field measure-
ments t h a t indicated nnlform lining
convergence with respect to the bmnel
centre line and by the improved predic-
tion of the t - n n e l behaviour by the C.-
C. method. This improvement results
from taking into account the ground
displacements t h a t occurred before the
l~nlng was installed.
The loads and displacements asso-
ciated with Ec in Figure 3 would be
closer to those associated with Eb if the
ground displacements were measured
closer to the Umnel support.
Conclusion
The study presented herein indi-
cates t h a t for the two bmne]s con-
structed in stiff clay in Edmonton, the
prediction of tunnel behaviour based
346 Tum~x.r~o ANYU~DP.P~mOtn~DSPACETE~OLOOY
on the C.-C. method yielded good re-
sults for the deep t~mnel but not for the
shallow one.
The discrepancy between predicted
and measured displacements is attrib-
uted to the fact t h a t the mode of defor-
mation and development of plasticity
in the soil surrounding the shallow
b m n e l was not AxiRymmetric, as as-
sumed by the C.-C. method. The de-
parture from the uniform radial
(axisymmetric) mode ofbehaviour with
the LRT-SE tunnel was due to the
proximity of the ground surface.
It was shown that most of the non-
~xiRymrnetric deformation took place
before the lining activation. This sug-
gests that for the development of a de-
sign method for shallow bmne]S, spe-
cial attention should be paid to the
ground behaviour before the lining acti-
vation. As has been shown, for this type
of host material, after the lining is
erected, generally simple -nlform ra-
dial displacements are expected to take
place. []
Acknowledgment
This study was carried out with the
assistanceofthe NationAl Sciences and
E n g i n e e r i n g R e s e a r c h Council of
Canada and in cooperation with the
City of Edmonton.
References
Branco, P. 1981. Behaviour of a ~h-llow
tunnel in tilL UnpublishedM.Sc. thesis,
Dept. of Civil E n d , University of
Alberta, Edmonton, Canada. 315 pp.
Brown, E. T.; Ladanyi, B.; and Hoek, E.
1983. Ground response curves for rock
runnels. ASCE Journal of geotech~ic~
Division 109:.1, 15-39.
Eisenstoin, Z.; E1-Nahhas, F .; and Thomson,
S. 1980. Preesuredisplacementrelations
in two systems of t~,nnel l'i'ni'r,~. Proc.
Spec. Session on Tunnels in Soft Ground,
6th PanAmerican Conf. on Soil Mech.
and Found. Eng., Lima, 85-94.
Rotterdam: BAncema.
Eisenstoin, Z.; E1-NAhha~; F.; and Thomson,
S. 1981. Strain field around a i~mnel in
stiff soil. Proc. lOth Int. Conf. on Soil
Mech. and Found. Eng., Stockholm, 283-
288.
E1-Nahhas, F. 1980. The behaviour of
t~mnehinstiffrocks. UnpublishedPh.D.
thesis, Dept. of Civil Engineering,
University of Alberta, Edmonton,
Alberta, Canads~ 305 pp.
Hoek, E. and E. T. Brown. 1981.
Underground excavations in rock.
London: Institution of Mining and
Metallurgy.
Kaiser, P. I~ 1980. Effect ofstress history
on the deformation behaviour of
undergroundoponln~s. 13th Canadian
Rock Mechanics Symposium, 133-351.
Lombardi, G. 1973. Dimensioning oft~mnel
|inln~ with regards to constructional
procedure. Tunnels and Tunnelling 5,
340-351.
Mindlin, R. D. 1940. Stress distribution
around a tunnel. Transactivna of the
ASCE 10~ 1117-1140.
Ranken, R. E. and Ghabouesi, J. 1975.
~aunel design considerations; analysis
of stresses and deformations around
advancing tunnels." Report prepared for
U.S. Dept. of Transportation UILU-
ENG75-2016.
Volume 6, Number 3, 1991