See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/315783195

Application of the convergence-confinement approach to analyze the rock-

lining interaction in tunnels (case study: Whitemud-Creek tunnel).

Conference Paper · May 2005

CITATIONS READS

0 334

3 authors, including:

H. A. Hasan Fathalla M. El-Nahhas

3 PUBLICATIONS   1 CITATION   
Ain Shams University
68 PUBLICATIONS   210 CITATIONS   
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Tunnelling and Underground Structures in Soft Ground View project

Geotechnical Assessment of Foundation Systems View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Fathalla M. El-Nahhas on 05 April 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 11th ICSGE Ain Shams University
17-19 May 2005 Faculty of Engineering
Cairo - Egypt Department of Structural Engineering

Eleventh International Colloquium on Structural and Geotechnical Engineering

APPLICATION OF THE CONVERGENCE-CONFINEMENT APPROACH

TO ANALYZE THE ROCK-LINING INTERACTION IN TUNNELS
(CASE STUDY : WHITEMUD-CREEK TUNNEL)
(1)
Cap. Eng. Hazem Ahmed Hasan
(2)
Prof. Dr. Fathalla Mohamed El-Nahhas
(3)
Col. Dr. Adel Mahmoud Belal
ABSTRACT
The Convergence-Confinement approach is a procedure in which the ground-liner
interaction is analyzed by considering the behavior of the ground and the liner independently.
This method enables calculation of average radial pressure applied to the support by the
intersection of two curves representing the radial stresses as a function of radial strain, one for the
ground and the other for the liner.
This paper discusses the application of the Convergence-Confinement method of tunnel
analysis to rock masses that satisfies the Hoek-Brown failure criterion. The Whiteud-Creek
Tunnel has been studied using this method to analyze the structural interaction between rock and
different types of individual support systems such as; steel ribs, shotcrete, rock bolts and
compound systems of these supports. The equations that govern the behavior of the rock-support
interaction are given through two basic components of the Convergence-Confinement method
which are, Ground Reaction Curve (GRC) and Support Characteristics Curve (SCC).
According to the analytical results, a comparison has been conducted between the different
support systems according to the maximum capacity pressure of the support and the estimated
lining load based on the Convergence-Confinement method. The value of this load depends on
the timing of lining installation and consequently the value of the ground radial displacement due
to the releasing of stresses.
Keywords: Convergence-Confinement approach, Ground Reaction Curve, Rock bolts,
Shotcrete, Structural interaction, Support Characteristics Curve.

1. INTRODUCTION
Controlling ground-lining interaction is one of the most critical process during the
implementation of tunnelling projects. Some of the design and construction decisions during
these projects are very critical to reduce the ground movements around the excavated tunnel.
These movements have a direct effect on the tunnel stability and the design load of the lining
system. Many lining systems have been used to support tunnels opening. Steel segments,
reinforced concrete segments, composite sections of steel and concrete, steel ribs and timber
lagging shotcrete and rock bolts are examples of the commonly used tunnel linings.

(1) Graduate student Engineering Department of Armed Forces

(2) Prof. of Geotechnical Engineering Ain Shams University
(3) Assistant Prof. of Geotechnical Engineering Military Technical College

1/14
Choice of the appropriate lining system depends mainly on the geological conditions, ground
stiffness, configuration of the tunnel and the in-situ stress field around the opening.
In rock tunnels, the quality of the rock mass is an important factor to determine the suitable
lining system. For moderately to hard homogeneous rock, a thin shotcrete thickness is sufficient
to protect the rock surface, while in case of poor highly jointed rock, a stiffer lining system is
needed according to the presence of joints, folds, faults and separated blocks. The main aim of
this research is to investigate the behavior of the ground-lining interaction using the
Convergence-Confinement approach. The analysis was applied on Whitemud-Creek Tunnel in
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada (Thomson and El-Nahhas, 1980).

2. CASE STUDY: WHITEMUD-CREEK TUNNEL

This tunnel was constructed as an extension of the existing storm tunnel under 30th Avenue,
Edmonton, Canada to drain storm water to the North Saskatchewan River. The excavated
diameter of the Whitemud-Creek Tunnel was 6.05m advanced using two unshielded Tunnel
Boring Machines (TBMs).

2.1 Subsurface Profile and Geotechnical Properties

The tunnel was bored through poorly indurated clay-shale interbeded with thin sandstone
strata. The clay-shale cover over the crown of the tunnel varies between 6-24.5m thick and is
overlain by glacial till, silty sand and glacial lake sediments. The subsurface profile as interpreted
from borehole logs is shown in Fig. 1. Shales predominate among the sedimentary rocks in the
earth’s crust. Their properties vary from those of “solid” rock that must be blasted for excavation
to those of soil-like materials that fall within the engineering definition of soil. The engineering
properties of clay-shale, which the tunnel was excavated through, are given in Table 1.

2.2 Lining System

Choosing lining system for a specific tunnel depends on the excavation technology, which
is used for tunnel construction. The Whitemud-Creek Tunnel was excavated using unshielded
TBM (El-Nahhas, 1977). The primary or temporary lining consisted of segmented steel ribs (WF
150 x 37 mm), 1.5 m center-to-center and (5 x 20 cm) spruce lagging which was placed outside
the ribs in an overlapping pattern. Each steel rib consisted of four equal segments. The used
lagging has the advantages of simple placement and providing protection to the tunnel crew. The
secondary plain concrete lining was placed about 4 months after completion of the excavation
operation using movable steel-forms to give a finished diameter of 5.2 m. The concrete was
pumped in steel pipes from the ground surface through the power shafts to fill the space between
the lining and the steel forms. No steel reinforcement was used in secondary lining. However, the
steel ribs were left embedded in the secondary concrete lining to act together as a composite
structure.

2.3 Ground Reaction Curve (GRC)

The Ground Reaction Curve (GRC) for clay-shale can be constructed using the elasto-plastic
solution for circular opening subject to uniform far-field stresses and uniform internal pressure by
using equations (1:14) as proposed by Carranza-Torres and Fairhurst (2000). Table 2 contains the
data required for these calculations.

2/14
 Table 1 : Geotechnical properties of clay-shale (after Thomson and El-Nahhas, 1980)

Thomson El-Nahhas Thomson El-Nahhas

Reference &Yacyshyn Reference &Yacyshyn
(1977) (1977)
(1977) (1977)
Density
- 21 Clay content (%) - 56
(kN/m3)
Natural
Degree of saturation
moisture 10-20 15 - 0.92
(%)
content (%)
Liquid limit Peak cohesion, C`
50-100 111 52-58 -
(%) (kPa)
Residual angle of
Plastic limit shearing resistance,
20-25 27 12-17 -
(%) Φ` (deg.)

GSI  100 pi s
mb  mi exp( ) (1) Pi   (2)
28 mb ci mb2
 s 1
S   2 (3) Pi cr  (1  1  16 S  ) 2 (4)
mb ci mb 16

s GSI  100
p icr  ( Pi cr  )mb ci (5) s  exp( ) (6)
mb2 9
GSI   pi
a  0.65  ( ) (7) u rel  (  )R (8)
200 2Grm
E rm
Grm  (9) Erm  1000C ( ci )10 ( GSI 10 ) / 40 (10)
2(1   )
1  sin
R pl  Re xp[2( Pi cr  Pi )] (11) K  (12)
1  sin

u rpl 2Grm K  1 2 R pl K 1 1  2 R pl 2 1  2 Pi cr
  ( )  [ln( )]  [
R    picr K  1 K  1 R 4( S   Pi cr ) R K  1 S   Pi cr
1   K  1 1 R pl R pl K 1
 ][( K  1) ln( )( )  1]
2 ( K  1) S   Pi
2 cr
R R
(13)
1  2 1  2 R pl 2 1  2
cr
u rpl 2G rm Pi R pl 2 Pi cr R pl
[  1]( )  [ln( )]  [2 ln( )  1]
R    pi cr
2 S   Pi cr
R 4( S   Pi )
cr
R 2 S   Pi cr
R
(14)

3/14
 Table: 2 Required data for constructing the GRC
Radius of the tunnel (R) 3.025 m

Density of bedrock (γ) 21. kN/m3

Density of till (γ) 19.6 kN/m3

Unconfined compressive strength of clay-
1000 kPa
shale (σci)
Poissons ratio of clay-shale 0.4

Geotechnical Strength Index (GSI) 50

mi (dimensionless parameter of intact
19
rock )
mb (dimensionless parameter of rock
3.20
mass)
s & a respectively 3.9*10-3 , 0.5

Shear modulus (Grm) 112940 kPa

Kψ (dilation coefficient) 1

Where:
mb is a dimensionless parameter for rock mass depends on both the intact rock parameter mi and
the GSI value.
mi is a dimensionless parameter of intact rock, the value of which depends on the type of rock
being tested.
GSI is the Geotechnical Strength Index.
Pi is the scaled internal pressure (kPa).
pi is the uniform internal pressure (kPa)
σci is unconfined compressive strength (kPa).
σº is the far-field stress (kPa).
Sº is the scaled far-field stress (kPa)
picr is the critical internal pressure (kPa).
Picr is the scaled critical pressure (kPa).
urel is the radial displacement in the elastic part of the GRC (mm).
urpl is the radial displacement in the plastic part of the GRC (mm).
Grm is the rock mass shear modulus (kPa).
Erm is the rock mass modulus (MPa).
υ is the Poisson,s ratio.
R is the tunnel radius (m).
Rpl. is the radius of the plastic zone (m).
KΨ is the dilation angle,( KΨ=1 for Ψ= 0 and KΨ=3 for Ψ= 30).

4/14
s is the dimensionless parameter depends on GSI which satisfies equation (6) for GSI
≥ 25, for GSI < 25 s =0.
a the dimensionless parameter depends on GSI which satisfies equation (7) for GSI
< 25, for GSI ≥ 25 a =0.
For equation (10) :
C (σCi) =1 if σci ≥ 100 MPa
1/ 2
C (σCi) = (σCi / 100) if σci ≤ 100 MPa
The GRC is constructed for the test section that was established 915m from the eastern
shaft; Fig. 1. The overburden for the test section consists of 24.5m rock cover and 20.27m till
cover. The total uniform far-field stress (σо) is calculated as follows:
σο = γrock*hrock + γtill* htill (15)
σο = 21.2*24.5+ 19.6*20.27= 917 kPa
The GRC shown in Fig. 2 illustrates the critical pressure value picr= 370 kPa, which marks
the transition from elastic to plastic behavior of the rock-mass and a maximum plastic zone
having Rpl =5.75 m. The calculated maximum closure (i.e., the radial displacement) urmax =
28.8mm at zero internal pressure (i.e., the tunnel is unsupported).
The previous results were evaluated for the value of the coefficient of earth pressure equal to
(k◦ =1).
For (k◦ =0.67), the GRC shown in Fig. 2 illustrates the total uniform far-field stress
(σο= 765.7kPa), critical pressure value picr= 286.7 kPa and a maximum plastic zone having Rpl
=5.3 m. The calculated maximum closure urmax = 21.6mm at zero internal pressure.

2.4 Support Characteristics Curve (SCC)

The Support Characteristics Curve (SCC) has been constructed for two support systems,
steel ribs and timber lagging and steel ribs only.

2.4.1 SCC for Steel ribs and Timber Lagging

The SCC for the steel ribs section (WF 6x25) and the (5x20 cm) timber lagging was
constructed by calculating the maximum pressure that the system can sustain (psmax ) and the
elastic stiffness of the support system (Ks).
 As I s
Ps
max
= 3 ys (16)
2 SR 3I s  DAs [ R (t B 0.5 D )](1cos )
1  SR 2  SR 4 [ ( sin cos ) 1] 2 St B R
(17)
K s E s As E s I s 2sin 2  EB B 2
where
B : the flange width of the steel set and the side length (m).
D : the depth of the steel section (m).
As: the cross sectional area of the section (m2).
Is : the moment of inertia about x-x axis of the section (m4).
Es : Young’s Modulus for the steel (MPa).
σys : the yield strength of the steel (MPa).
S : the steel set spacing along the tunnel axis (m).
tB : the thickness of the block (m).
EB: Young’s Modulus for the spruce lagging material (MPa).
R : the tunnel radius.

5/14
θ : the angle between timber lagging that is installed in the cross section , this angle can
be computed as ( θ = Π/ nB ) .
where:
nB : the total number of equally spaced timber lagging.
Table 3 contains the required data for these calculations.
The SCC illustrate the maximum calculated pressure value psmax =3020kPa that the support
system can accept before collapse, which is indicated by point (Rs) shown in Fig.3 and the
calculated elastic stiffness of the support system Ks = 68.527 MPa/m.
The maximum calculated radial displacement at the moment of collapse after the full
yeilding of support system is urmax = 44mm.
Table: 3 Required data for constructing SSC for steel ribs and timber lagging support
system
B 0.152 m S 1.5 m
D 0.15925 m tB 0.4 m
As 4.61*10-3 m2 EB 10*103 MPa
-5 4
Is 2.09*10 m R 3.025 m
Es 210*103 MPa nB 125
σys 120 MPa θ 0.025 rad
 Symbols are defined in section 2.5.1.
In this case the timber lagging was acting as elastic support so the elastic stiffness (Ks) of
the support system is low with respect to the maximum pressure (psmax), so the `maximum
displacement (urmax) is high.

2.4.2 SCC for Steel Ribs Only

The maximum pressure (psmax) sustainable from the steel ribs and the elastic stiffness (Ks)
of a closed circular steel ribs is given by the following simplified expression after eliminating the
effect of timber lagging:
 ys AS 1  SR 2
p s 3
max
(18) (19)
2 SR K s E s As
The SCC shown in Fig. 3 illustrate the maximum calculated pressure psmax =305 kPa, which
is indicated by point (Rs) in Fig. 3 and the calculated elastic stiffness of the steel ribs Ks = 117.55
MPa/m. The maximum calculated radial displacement at that moment of collapse after the full
yielding of support system is urmax = 2.59 mm.
In this case, the spacing between steel ribs should be limited to 0.9 m, because it is the
maximum spacing achieves the interaction between steel ribs and the ground at the beginning of
the plastic zone, (i.e., if spacing between steel ribs is greater than 0.9 m and ur˚= 6mm the GRC
and SCC for steel ribs will not intersect and the tunnel face will start failure). The spacing can be
increased but the value of (ur˚) will increase and the area of plastic zone will also increase.

2.5 Application of Convergence-Confinement Approach

The interaction between the clay-shale and the support system takes place after the
installation of the support system. During the advance of the tunnel, the clay-shale and the
support system deform together and the support system receives part of the load that the tunnel
face had been carrying previously before installing the support system.
Once the TBM has moved ahead, the clay-shale and the support system reach equilibrium
and the support system carries the final load or design load (psD), which is indicated by point (Ds)

6/14
as shown in Fig. 4. The values of psD for steel ribs and timber lagging support system and steel
ribs only in case of (k◦ =1), are 246 kPa and 288 kPa, respectively and in case of (k◦ =0.67) are
185.7 kPa and 228.6 kPa, respectively. At this time the effect of the face has disappeared and the
ground had converged by the final amount (urD). The values of urD for steel ribs and timber
lagging support system and steel ribs only in case of (k◦ =1) are 3.7 mm and 2.25 mm,
respectively and in case of (k◦ = 0.67) are 2.7 mm and 1.9 mm, respectively . The radial
displacement of the steel ribs and timber lagging is considered assuming a preactivation ground
deformation of ur˚= 6 mm. This deformation is the value of the radial convergence of the tunnel
wall which resulted from the releasing of stresses before the start of the ground interaction with
the support system.
It is expected that the secondary plain concrete (cast-in-place) lining dose not carry any load
because it was casted four months after the tunnel had been fully excavated and all steel ribs and
timber lagging were installed.

2.6 Effect of Construction Technology on Rock-Lining Interaction

The lining system of the Whitemud-Creek Tunnel could have been changed if the excavation
was executed by the Roadheader machine, Fig.5 shows different lining systems that were used
for excavation by TBM and Roadheader machine.
For the Whitemud-Creek Tunnel, the selected alternative types of lining systems were:
 For excellent rock mass: shotcrete (10cm thick) with wire mesh 10x10 cm using
steel 37.
 For good rock mass: shotcrete 10 cm thick with rock bolts 3 m long.
For poor rock mass: shotcrete 20 cm thick with steel ribs (WF150x37).

2.6.1 Support Characteristics Curve

The Support Characteristics Curve (SCC) was constructed for shotcrete and rock bolts
support systems, the SCC for steel ribs was previously evaluated in Section (2.5.2).

2.6.1.1 Shotcrete
The structural behavior of the shotcrete lining system is evaluated by using the following
equations to provide the maximum pressure that the shotcrete can sustain before collapse (psmax)
and the elastic stiffness (Ks).
max  ( Rt c ) 2 Ec R 2 ( Rt c ) 2
p s  cc [1 ] (20) K  (21)
2 R2 S
(1 c ) R (12 c ) R 2 ( Rt c ) 2
where
σcc: the unconfined compressive strength of the shotcrete in (MPa).
Ec : the Young,s Modulus for the shotcrete in (MPa).
νc : the Poisson’s ratio for the shotcrete.
tc: the thickness of the shotcrete (m).
R: the tunnel radius (m).
Table 4 contains the required data for these calculations.
The dry mixture of shotcrete consists of about18 % cement, 30 % coarse aggregate and 52%
sand.
The middle SCC shown in Fig.6 illustrates the maximum calculated pressure psmax =660 kPa
that the shotcrete (thickness 10cm) can accept before collapse, which is indicated by point (Rc).
The calculated elastic stiffness of the shotcrete Ks=461.367 MPa/m. The maximum calculated

7/14
radial displacement at the moment of collapse after the full yielding of the shotcrete is about urmax
=1.4 mm. The upper SCC for shotcrete (thickness 20cm) in Fig. 6 illustrates that the calculated
values of psmax = 1290 kPa and urmax = 1.4 mm.
Table:4 Required data for constructing SCC for shotcrete lining
σcc 20.3 MPa (Dry mix, after 1 day)
Ec 23.1MPa
νc 0.25
tc 0.1m
R 3.025m
The interaction between the clay-shale and the shotcrete lining (thickness 10 cm) will take
place directly after lining of shotcrete is sprayed. During the advance of the tunnel the clay-shale
and the shotcrete deform together and the shotcrete receives part of the load that the tunnel face
had been carrying previously before shotcreting.
Once the tunnel face has moved ahead far enough, the clay-shale and the shotcrete is in
equilibrium and the shotcrete carries the final load or design load psD =477 kPa, which is
indicated by point (Dc) in Fig. 7. At that time the effect of the face has disappeared and the
shotcrete and the ground have converged together by the final amount of about urD= 1 mm.
The radial displacement of the shotcrete is considered from the assumed value ur˚= 5 mm,
which is the value of the radial convergence of the tunnel wall associated with the release of
stresses before the shotcerte activation.
The interaction between clay-shale and 20 cm thick shotcrete is shown in Fig. 7. It
illustrates that the values of psD = 550 kPa and urD= 0 .7 mm.

2.6.1.2 Rock Bolts

Assuming that the bolts are equally spaced in circumferential direction, the maximum
support pressure (psmax) provided by the support system and the elastic stiffness (Ks) can be
evaluated by the following equations:
max Tbf 1 s s [ 4 L Q]
ps  (22) (23)
s c sl K s c l d b 2 E s
where
db : the bolt diameter in (m).
L : the free length of the bolt in (m).
Tbf : the ultimate load obtained from a pull-out test in (MN).
Q : the deformation load constant for the bolt and the head in (m/MN).
Es : the Young,s Modulus for the bolt in (MPa).
sc : the circumferential bolt spacing in (m), (sc =2 Π R/ nb, where nb is the total
number of equally spaced bolts installed in the cross section.
sl : the longitudinal bolt spacing in (m).
Table 5 contains the required data for these calculations. equally spaced bolts installed in the
cross section.
The SCC of rock bolts as shown in Fig.6 illustrates the maximum calculated pressure psmax
= 196 kPa that the rock bolts can accept before collapse, which is indicated by point (Rb) in Fig. 7
and the calculated elastic stiffness of the rock bolts Ks=12.6 MPa/m. The maximum calculated
radial displacement at the moment of collapse after the full yielding of the rock bolts is urmax
=15.5 mm.

8/14
 The sequence of interaction between the clay-shale and the rock bolts indicated that psD =
196 kPa, which is illustrated by point (Db) in Fig. 7 and urD= 15.5 mm.

Table: 5 Required data for constructing SSC for rock bolts lining
db 0.022m
L 3m
Tbf 0.196 MN
Q 0.042 m/MN
Es 210*103MPa
sc 1m
sl 1m

The values [db, L, Tbf, Q ] determined for expansion shell bolts in field tests, which depend on
the rock type.
The radial displacement of the rock bolts is considered from the value ur˚= 2.5 mm, which is
the value of the radial convergence of the tunnel wall which associated with the release of
stresses before the rock bolts activation.

2.6.2 Compound Effect of Support Systems

If more than one of the support systems are installed as composite lining, their combined
effect can be determined by adding the elastic stiffnesses for each of the individual supports. This
has the effect of increasing the total elastic stiffness of the whole system. Consider for example,
the case in which two supports characterized by maximum pressure ps1max and ps2max and elastic
stiffnesses Ks1and Ks2, respectively are installed in a section of tunnel. The stiffnesses Ks for the
two systems acting together can be computed as following:
K S  K1  K 2 (24)
This value is assumed to remain valid until one of the two supports achieves its maximum
possible elastic deformation urmax computed as:
max max
max p s 1 max p s 2
u r1  (25) ur 2  (26)
K s1 KS2
max max max
u r  u r1  u r 2 (27)
The combined support system is assumed to fail at that point. The support with the lowest
value of urmax determines the maximum support pressure available for the two supports acting
together because if one assumes that the collapse of the support system coincides with collapse of
the weakest element, so the maximum support pressure that the system can sustain before
collapse is computed as follows:
max max
p s u r ,min K s (28)

2.6.2.1 Support Characteristics Curve for Different Compound Support Systems

The Whitemud-Creek Tunnel, which could have been excavated by Roadheader Machine
have many types of compound support systems such as:
 Shotcrete and steel ribs.
 Shotcrete and rock bolts.

9/14
2.6.2.1.1 Shotcrete and Steel Ribs
This type is divided to steel ribs as primary lining, which is installed after ground
convergence by 6 mm as a result of stress releasing. Despite of the presence of steel ribs the
ground will still converge because of the gab between the ground and steel ribs until the full
application of shotcrete, which fill all spaces and the full contact between shotcrete and ground is
achieved. At the moment of the activation of steel ribs with shotcrete (thickness 20 cm) as
permanent lining, the ground convergence is equal to 10mm, the final convergence of the support
system is equal 0.2mm after its interaction with the ground. The results are shown in Table 6.
The previous values are shown in Fig. 8 and the figure illustrate the SCC for steel ribs and the
SCC for steel ribs with shotcrete.
Table: 6 Results of shotcrete and steel ribs support system
Kº Psmax (kPa) psD (kPa) urmax (mm) urD (mm)
1 1500 250 1.4 0.2
0.67 1500 115 1.4 0.1

2.7.2.1.2 Shotcrete and Rock Bolts

This type is divided to rock bolts as primary lining, which is installed after ground
convergence by 3mm and rock bolts with shotcrete (thickness 0.1m) as permanent lining besides
rock bolts after ground convergence by 4mm, the final convergence of the support system is
equal 1.4mm after its interaction with the ground. The results of this type of support system are
listed in Table 7.
Table: 7 Results of shotcrete and rock bolts support system
Psmax 665 kPa p sD 550 kPa
max D
ur 1.4 mm ur 1.3 mm

The previous values are shown in Fig. 9 and the figure illustrate the SCC for rock bolts
and the SCC for rock bolts with shotcrete.
Note that if the shotcrete lining system is only applied the value of radial displacement of the
ground before lining activation will be greater than its value when the shotcrete with rock bolts
lining system is applied because the use of rock bolts as primary lining decreases the value of radial
displacement of the ground before applying shotcrete.

3. CONCLUSIONS
According to the previous results, a comparison can be obtained between the different support
systems according to the maximum capacity pressure of the support and the lining load, which
result from the point of intersection between the GRC and SCC (i.e, the equilibrium position). The
value of this load depends on the timing of installation and consequently the value of the ground
radial displacement due to the releasing of stresses. Results of the analysis suggest that the shotcrete
lining is a better support system because it achieves the highest value of maximum capacity
pressure of the support in case of using the Roadheader machine. In case of using compound
systems, the maximum capacity pressure will be increased and the final radial displacement of the
support systems will be decreased. The steel ribs support system is used with cast-in-place concrete
in case of using TBM and is used with shotcrete lining in case of using Roadheader Machine. The
radial displacement of steel ribs before installing the final lining is smaller when using shotcrete.
Therefore, the use of shotcrete lining with steel ribs is better and the shotcrete lining is installed

10/14
directly after installation of each steel set and consequently it contributes in carrying the load
transmitted by the rock to support system.
The system of shotcrete with rock bolts achieves the lowest value of maximum capacity
pressure because of the relatively small elastic stiffness of rock bolts compared with steel ribs and
shotcrete. Therefore, this system is used only in case of stabilizing the separated blocks in tunnel
roof with good rock mass.

REFRENCES
[1] Carranza-Torres, C. and Fairhurst, C. (2000), “Application of The Convergence-
Confinement Method of Tunnel Design to Rock Masses that Satisfy The Hoek-Brown
Failure Criterion.” Journal of Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, Vol. 15,
No. 2, Published by Elsevier Science Ltd. pp. 187-213.

[2] El-Nahhas, F. (1977), “Field Measurements in two Tunnels in the City of Edmonton” ,
MSc. Thesis , University of Alberta , Edmonton , Alberta , Canada ,85 p.

[3] Thomson, S. and EL-Nahhas, F. (1980), “ Field Measurements in Two Tunnels in

Edmonton, Alberta” , Canadian Geotechincal Journal, Vol. 17, No. 1 , pp 20-33.

Fig.1 Inferred subsurface stratigraphy above the Whitemud-Creek Tunnel,

( after Thomson and El-Nahhas,1980).

11/14
 1000

900

800

700

Pressure, Pi(KPa)
600

500
K=1
400 GRC

300
k=0.67
200

100

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Radial displacement of the tunnel wall, Ur(mm)

Fig. 2 Ground Reaction Curve for the Whitemud-Creek Tunnel

3100
Rs
Steel ribs w ith timber
2480 lagging
Pressure, Pi (kPa)

1860

1240

620

Rs
Steel ribs only
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Radial displacement of the tunnel w all, Ur (mm)

Fig. 3 Support characteristics curve of steel ribs with timber lagging & steel ribs only
1000

900 Steel ribs with

timber lagging

800

700 GRC
Pressure, pi(KPa)

600 SCC

500
k=0.67 k=1
400
steel ribs only
300 Ds

200 Ds

100

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Radial displacement of the tunnel wall, Ur(mm)

Fig 4 Convergence-Confinement interaction between clay-shale & lining systems.

12/14
 Whitemud- Creek Tunnel

Tunnelling Boring Machine Roadheader Machine

(actual case) (alternative case)

Primary Lining Secondary Lining Primary Secondary Lining

Lining
Shotcrete with Steel
Steel ribs with timber Caste- in- Place Steel mesh ribs Rock bolts
lagging concrete
Shotcrete with Steel ribs
Rock bolts

Fig. 5 Different support systems for Whitemud Creek Tunnel

1400
Shotcrete 20 cm
1200
Pressure, Pi (kPa)

1000
SCC
800
Shotcrete 10
600

400
Steel ribs only
200
Rock bolts
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Radial displacement of the tunnel w all, Ur(mm)

Fig.6 Support characteristics curve for different support systems

13/14
 1400

1200 Shotcrete
(thickness20cm)

1000 SCC

Pressure, pi (KPa)
800
GRC Shotcrete
Rc (thickness 10cm)
600
Dc
Dc

400
Rs Steel ribs

Ds
200

Db Rb Rockbolts
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Radial displacement of the tunnel wall,(mm)

Fig. 7 Convergence-Confinement between clay-shale & different lining systems

for Whitemud- Creek Tunnel

1500
Rsc
Shotcrete+steel ribs

Rc Shotcrete(t=20cm)

1200

SCC
Pressure, pi(kPa)

900
K=1
GRC

600
K=0.67 Dc

Rs
Steel ribs
300 Ds
Dsc

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Radial displacement of the tunnel wall,(mm)

Fig.8 Convergence-Confinement between clay-shale & shotcrete

with steel ribs lining system
١٠٠٠

٨٠٠
Pressure, Pi (kPa)

Rc Shotcrete+Rock bolts
٦٠٠ RcShotcrete(t=١٠cm)
Dcb
Dc
٤٠٠
SCC

٢٠٠ GRC

Db Rb Rock bolts
٠
٠ ٥ ١٠ ١٥ ٢٠ ٢٥ ٣٠
Radial displacement of the tunnel wall, Ur (mm)

Fig.9 Convergence-Confinement between clay-shale & shotcrete with rock bolts

14/14

View publication stats