KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering (2014) 18(2):672-682 Tunnel Engineering

Copyright ⓒ2014 Korean Society of Civil Engineers

DOI 10.1007/s12205-014-0597-9 pISSN 1226-7988, eISSN 1976-3808
www.springer.com/12205
TECHNICAL NOTE

Evaluation of the NATM Tunnel Load on Concrete Lining using

the Ground Lining Interaction Model
Sang-Seom Jeong*, Young-Chul Han**, Yong-Min Kim***, and Do-Hyun Kim****
Received December 3, 2012/Revised April 17, 2013/Accepted May 27, 2013

··································································································································································································································

Abstract

This study presents a Ground Lining Interaction (GLI) model to consider the deterioration of primary supports and realistic ground
conditions in evaluations of accurate New Austrian Tunnel Method (NATM) tunnel loads acting on concrete linings. Several
parametric studies of the major parameters that influence tunnel loads are performed and the results are compared with Terzaghi’s
formula. Numerical results demonstrate that the proposed GLI model is capable of reducing excessive tunnel loads by up to 30%.
Based on the obtained results, a simplified GLI formula that can be used in engineering practice is proposed for NATM tunnel loads
on concrete linings.
Keywords: NATM tunnel, tunnel loads, terzaghi’s formula, ground lining interaction, concrete lining, numerical analysis
··································································································································································································································

1. Introduction equilibrium between the tunnel and surrounding soil is disturbed

South Korea is currently experiencing a serious lack of land
space due to its large population of approximately 47 million
people which occupies slightly less than 100,000 km2 of land,
75% of which is mountainous. Therefore, there is a great demand
for the development of underground space. Since 1980, a num-
ber of massive excavation projects, such as underground infra-
structure projects for the construction of subway systems, high-
speed railways as well as many lifeline projects have been per-
formed in urban areas (Jeong and Seo, 2004). Related to this,
New Austrian Tunnel Method (NATM) tunnels are frequently
preferred to shield tunnels in weathered soil and granite-gneiss
rock. Although there have been considerable advancements in
construction techniques involving NATM tunnels, tunnel engi-
neers must evaluate the proper tunnel loads that are acting on the
concrete lining in each case so as to facilitate an economical and
rational design. The concrete lining is typically designed to
support partial or full overburden load depending on the geo-
metric and geological conditions of the tunnel and the surround-
ing soil (Terzaghi, 1943; Iftimie, 1998).
During their construction, tunnel is supported by primary sup-
ports such as rockbolts and shotcrete. Therefore, ground loads
are not applied to the final concrete lining because, when the
lining is installed, a state of equilibrium is reached between the
ground and the primary supports. Importantly, however, the
as the primary supports deteriorate over time. Because nearly
two- thirds of the land in South Korea is covered by weathered
rocks and soils, numerous road and rail tunnels have been con-
structed in those strata. To date, owing to these uncertainties, the
overburdened or disturbed vertical loads calculated by Terzaghi’s
formula have generally been adopted for the design of concrete
linings based on their simplicity and practicality.
However, Koyama et al. (1995) questioned the validity of Ter-
zaghi’s formula in the case of good ground conditions, arguing
that the tunnel loads adopted during the design phase may be
greater than the field measurement results. It can be said that the
conventional design method tends to be too conservative. Despite
these circumstances, very few studies have been conducted to
clarify the actual tunnel loads acting on concrete linings. Jiang et
al. (2001) presented a theoretical method to determine the loos-
ening pressure in soft rock, and Mashimo and Ishimura (2003)
conducted a field test to investigate the load distribution of the
tunnel lining on gravel. Kim and Eisenstein (2006) reviewed the
method for tunnel load correction factors considering that the
lining load decreases due to the stress release before the installa-
tion of the lining and increases due to the development of ground
yielding. However, these studies were considered only a circular
tunnel and were limited to site-specific characteristics. Therefore,
they cannot be applied to the horseshoe-shaped NATM tunnel in
weathered soil and granite-gneiss rock.

*Member, Professor, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Yonsei University, Seoul 120-749, Korea (Corresponding Author, E-mail: soj9081@yon-
sei.ac.kr)
**Ph.D., Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Yonsei University, Seoul 120-749, Korea (E-mail: ychan009@yonsei.ac.kr)
***Member, Ph.D. Candidate, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Yonsei University, Seoul 120-749, Korea (E-mail: kimkimym@yonsei.ac.kr)
****Ph.D. Candidate, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Yonsei University, Seoul 120-749, Korea (E-mail: dohyun0403@yonsei.ac.kr)

− 672 −
 Sang-Seom Jeong, Young-Chul Han, Yong-Min Kim, and Do-Hyun Kim
This study presents a Ground Lining Interaction (GLI) model
that considers the deterioration of primary supports and realistic
ground conditions when evaluating the actual NATM tunnel loads
acting on concrete linings. In addition, a series of parametric
analyses of the major parameters that influence tunnel loads were
conducted and the results are compared with Terzaghi’s formula.
Based on the numerical results, a simplified GLI formula that
can be used in practical engineering fields is proposed.
2. Methods Available for Estimating Tunnel Loads
For general tunnel design problems, methods available for esti-
mating tunnel loads should capture several requirements as fol-
lows: First, the design method should be simple to use. Even if a
developed method is very accurate, it is less valuable if it is too
complex and cannot be used practically. For this reason, Duddeck
and Erdmann (1985) reviewed the progress of design model
development and concluded in their study that available design
methods are studied for practical applications. Second, the stress
release should occur before the installation of any liner. Wood
(1975) presented a closed-form solution, recommending a 50%
reduction of the full overburdened pressures to account for sup-
port deterioration. Although a 50% stress reduction seems an
arbitrary value, this point is essential. Third, the method should
regard the plastic and elastic behaviors of the ground.
Studies conducted to establish methods for calculating tunnel
loads can be divided into several types: 1) those that use empir-
ical and semi-empirical methods, 2) those that introduce mass-
spring models, and 3) those that rely on numerical methods. Most
of these methods have been discussed in detail by many other
scholars (Craig and Wood, 1978; O'Rourke, 1984; Duddeck and
Erdmann, 1985; Negro, 1988; Whittaker and Frith, 1990; Kim
and Eisenstein, 1998; Chang et al., 2010). Here, Terzaghi’s me-
thod is one of the most recognized empirical methods, while the
GLI model is based on the numerical methods.
2.1 Conventional Methods
Terzaghi (1946) suggested a rock load theory that can be used
to estimate the tunnel load acting on the tunnel lining. This me-
thod is considered to be conservative, as it was established for
very poor rock quality in which the tunnels were supported by
steel ribs and wooden blockings. Terzaghi’s ground arch action
concept and experiments with loose granular materials found that
the arch thickness of a tunnel’s roof is directly proportional to the
excavation dimensions. This concept is shown in Fig. 1.
Singh et al. (1992) compared the support pressures measured
from tunnels with the estimated results from Terzaghi’s rock load
concept and found that the support pressure for tunnels in jointed
rock did not increase directly with the excavation size, as Terza-
ghi had suggested. This phenomenon may be caused by the dila-
tant behavior of rock masses and joint roughness, which prevents
the loosening of rock masses.
Singh et al. (1992) and Goel et al. (1995) studied the effect of
the tunnel size on the support pressure using the Q-system. Based
Vol. 18, No. 2 / March 2014
Fig. 1. Rock Load and Ground Arch Concept of Terzaghi (1946)
on the correlations between the measured and observed tunnel
support pressures for various tunnel sizes in both squeezing and
non-squeezing ground conditions, they concluded that none of
the rock mass classifications are applicable for squeezing ground
conditions. Only the approach of Bhasin et al. (1974) provides a
viable estimation of the support pressure in non-squeezing ground
conditions. An empirical equation relates the support pressure
and the rock quality (Q).
200 1/3
Proof = --------- Q (1)
Jr
In this equation, Proof is the roof support pressure (kPa) and Jr is
the joint roughness in the Q-system. This equation indicates that
the support pressure is independent of the tunnel size.
Based on cases of Norwegian tunnels and on the data of Singh
et al. (1992) and Goel et al. (1995), Bhasin and Grimstad (1996)
suggested a new correlation for poor quality brecciated rock
masses. In this correlation, the dimensions of an excavation are
considered using Eq. (2):
Proof = 40D
–1/3
---------- Q (2)
Jr
where D represents the diameter (span) of the tunnel (m).
However, in poor ground conditions, additional deformation
may occurs. Alternatively, when there is an additional tunnel load
due to the deterioration of the primary supports, the equilibrium
state is disturbed (Seo et al., 2002). Thus, accurately evaluating
the actual tunnel load acting on the concrete lining in this new
state is important.
2.2 Terzaghi’s Formula
Terzaghi suggested a formula for estimating tunnel loads which
was derived from Janssen’s silo equation (1895). The formula of
Eq. (3) is used in cohesionless, dry, and granular soil with the
parameters shown in Fig. 1. Vertical tunnel loads (Proof) for shallow
− 673 −
 Evaluation of the NATM Tunnel Load on Concrete Lining using the Ground Lining Interaction Model

Table 1. Application of Load Height (Terzaghi 1946)

Rock mass rating Description of soils RMR Support pattern Load height (m)
1st Grade Very good rock 81~100 PD-1 0.25~0.5B
2nd Grade Good rock 61~80 PD-2 (0.2~0.3)(B+Ht)
3rd Grade Fair rock 41~60 PD-3 (0.3~0.4)(B+Ht)
4th Grade Poor rock 21~40 PD-4 (0.4~0.5)(B+Ht)
5th Grade Very poor rock < 20 PD-5 (0.5~0.6)(B+Ht)
Weathered rock - - PD-6 (0.6~0.8)(B+Ht)
Weathered soil - - PD-6-1 (0.8~1.0)(B+Ht)

and deep tunnels are shown in Eqs. (3) and (4), respectively. 3. Ground Lining Interaction (GLI) Model
–K tan φ 2H
-------
γB
Proof = ------------------ ⎛ 1 – e ⎞
B
(3) The actual tunnel load acting on concrete lining is the domi-
2K tan φ ⎝ ⎠
nant design factor for NATM tunnels embedded in weathered
γB soil and rock. Although the design of concrete lining considers
Proof = ------------------ (4)
2K tan φ any uncertainties, a new model that can rationally evaluate tun-
nel loads is necessary for an economical design. The primary
B φ
B = 2 -----1 + H1tan ⎛ 45 – ---⎞ (5) purpose of this study is to evaluate the actual tunnel load and to
2 ⎝ 2⎠
preserve and improve the potential of the ground to support itself
In these equations, γ is the unit weight of the ground (kN/m3), B to the greatest extent possible. This task can be accomplished by
is the ground relaxation load breadth (m), K is the in-situ stress exploiting an arching effect in the surrounding ground around the
ratio, φ is the ground friction angle (o), H is the soil depth above tunnel. To achieve the goal of designing a practical and safe
the tunnel (m), B1 is the tunnel width (m), and H1 is the tunnel tunnel, a GLI model is proposed using a finite difference method
height (m). Terzaghi’s method is based on the assumption that (FDM) with FLAC 2D (Fast Lagrangian Analysis of Continua).
ground relaxation is inevitable and requires steel supports. The GLI model can simulate the load transfer to the secondary
However, the use of Terzaghi’s formula for shallow tunnels supports (e.g., concrete lining) caused by the deterioration of the
such as subway systems often leads to overestimation of the tun- primary supports. These unstable states result in the disturbance
nel load (Korea Rail Network Authority, 2010; Chang et al., 2003). of the ground-tunnel equilibrium. In this state, the concrete lining
To deal with this problem special form of Eq. 6 is suggested to co-supports the tunnel load with the ground self-weight and redis-
reduce an excessive tunnel load by considering the effect of soil tributes the load caused by additional ground deformation. Even-
cohesion. tually, these unstable states will reach a new state of equilibrium.
2H
γ B – 2c- ⎛ 1 – e–K ------
Proof = -----------------
B
- tan φ
⎞ (6) 3.1 Load Transfer Mechanism by the Deterioration of Pri-
2K tan φ ⎝ ⎠
mary Supports
here, c denotes the ground cohesion (kPa). A plastic zone of the surrounding soil around a tunnel can be

2.3 Terzaghi’s Rock Mass Rating

Rock mass classification is a significant part of the empirical
design approach. The three main benefits of rock mass classifica-
tions are as follows: 1) improving the quality of site investigations
by indicating the minimum required data, 2) providing quantita-
tive information for designs, and 3) aiding better engineering
judgments and effective communication during projects.
Terzaghi (1946) suggested a method for estimating the tunnel
load acting on steel supports after tunnel excavation under the
assumption that the tunnel load region is limited to a certain
amount of area associated with the arching effect of the ground.
Rock is classified into nine grades depending on various condi-
tions, such as the existence of joints. However, thoroughly evalu-
ating the rock quality using this method is challenging. Deere
(1970) and Rose (1982) used Rock-Quality Designation (RQD)
to modify Terzaghi’s rock mass classification table and estimated Fig. 2. Plastic Zone Around a Tunnel: (a) with Support; (b) without
the height of a tunnel load, as shown in Table 1. Support

− 674 − KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering

 Sang-Seom Jeong, Young-Chul Han, Yong-Min Kim, and Do-Hyun Kim
minimized by installing appropriate supports or by ground rein-
forcement during tunnel excavation. The plastic zone denotes the
area on which the tunnel load is acting. Larger plastic zones can
be regarded as unstable ground states; thus, it is critical to mini-
mize the plastic zone. However, when the bearing capacity of the
supporting members is decreased due to deterioration, the plastic
zone continues to expand around the tunnel, as shown in Fig. 2.
A plastic zone of ground supported with shotcrete and rock- bolts
is quite small and limited to the side of the tunnel only. However,
after the shotcrete and the rockbolts are removed, the plastic zone
reaches the ground surface during the deterioration of the primary
support. With the methods mentioned above, simulating the
deterioration of the supporting members through typical tunnel
numerical analyses is possible. When the primary supports are lost,
the tunnel loads are transferred to the concrete lining.
3.2 GLI Model and Ground Reaction Curve
A ground reaction curve is widely used to illustrate the princi-
ple in which a tunnel is stabilized by controlling its displace-
ments after support installation. In this study, a theoretical back-
ground of a GLI model is discussed using a ground reaction
curve. Fig. 3 shows a typical ground-reaction curve from the
Kirsch stress and displacement equation from the circular cavity
expansion theory. The evaluation procedure for tunnel loads as-
sumes that the primary supports are installed when the ground is
being excavated. The secondary supports are considered after the
primary supports and surrounding ground reach equilibrium.
Without any support, the ground displacement tends to exhibit
elastic behavior in the initial state. Gradually, the ground will
adopt plastic behavior with a large displacement and finally con-
verge to equilibrium. In contrast, if the primary support is simu-
ltaneously installed during the excavation of the tunnel, the dis-
placement reaches its first state of equilibrium when the support
pressure and ground displacement converge at point A, as shown
in Fig. 3. If the secondary support is installed at this time, no load
will act on that support member. However, as the primary sup-
ports weaken and begin to deteriorate, the first equilibrium is
disturbed due to the ensuing, additional ground displacement, and
the loads are then transferred to the secondary support (concrete
Fig. 3. Ground Reaction Curve on Primary and Secondary Supports
Vol. 18, No. 2 / March 2014 − 675 −
lining).
The additional ground displacement continues until the concrete
lining and ground reach a new equilibrium state (point B). The
load acting on the lining is smaller than the load that formerly
acted on the primary support, as a result of the additional displace-
ment.
4. Analysis Procedure using the GLI Model
4.1 Mesh and Boundary Condition
A two-dimensional (2D) plain-strain condition for the GLI
model was chosen to simulate the response of the tunnel and
surrounding soil using a commercial finite difference package,
FLAC 2D version 5 (Itasca Consulting Group, Inc.). Although
this approach cannot capture preceding displacement at the tunnel
crown due to excavation, it is widely used in numerical analysis
of tunnel structures.
Figure 4 shows the typical finite mesh used in this study. The
overall dimensions of the model boundaries comprise a width of
4.5 times the tunnel width (B1) from the tunnel center and a height
of 8.6 times the tunnel height (H1). The soil above the tunnel is
4H1, and the soil below the tunnel is 3.6H1. These dimensions
were considered adequate to eliminate the influence of boundary
effects. The outer boundary of the mesh is fixed against the dis-
placement. A relatively fine mesh was used near the tunnel
because the plastic deformation is expected to be larger, while a
coarser mesh was used further from the tunnel.
4.2 Material Parameters and Load Distribution Ratio
The concrete lining and primary supports are considered as
linear-elastic materials at all times, while for the surrounding
ground, the Mohr-Coulomb non-associated flow rule is adopted.
The material properties of the tunnel and surrounding ground
used for the numerical analyses are summarized in Tables 2-3.
The material properties are selected from first-grade rock to
weathered soil, both of which are commonly encountered in the
engineering field in South Korea (Parker, 2004; Park et al., 2012).
The interface is considered as a full-contact interface, which is
generally assumed between the concrete lining and surrounding
ground throughout the service life of the tunnel, although contact
Fig. 4. Typical 2D Model for Numerical Analysis
 Evaluation of the NATM Tunnel Load on Concrete Lining using the Ground Lining Interaction Model

Table 2. Properties of Shotcrete and Rockbolts used in Parametric Study

Material A (m )
2
γ (kN/m3) υ E (MPa) Yield Strength (kPa) Bond Stiffness (kPa) Bond Strength (kPa)
Soft S/C* 0.05~0.2 20 0.2 5,000 - - -
Hard S/C* 0.05~0.2 20 0.2 1,5000 - - -
Rockbolt 5.07×10-4 - - 2.1×105 177 800 1.5×107
Note: *Shotcrete

Table 3. Properties of Ground used in Parametric Study

Unit weight, γ Cohesion, c Friction angle, θ Elastic modulus, E
Rock mass rating RMR Poisson ratio, ν
(kN/m3) (kPa) (o) (MPa)
1st Grade 81~100 27 4,000~5,000 0.20 45 20,000~30,000
2nd Grade 61~80 26 2,000~3,000 0.22 40 10,000~15,000
3rd Grade 41~60 25 1,000~1,500 0.24 35 6,000~8,000
4th Grade 21~40 23 400~700 0.26 32 2,000~4,000
5th Grade < 20 22 100~200 0.28 30 600~800
Weathered rock - 21 50~90 0.30 32 200~400
Weathered soil - 20 30~40 0.32 30 40~100

loss may develop around tunnels for several reasons, including
improper grouting and ground erosion.
In a numerical analysis, the initial equilibrium state is of great
significance. The specified initial stress distributions should match
a calculation based on the self-weight of the material. The mo-
deling of the tunnel and installation process of the primary sup-
ports is essential to generate the initial stress and to capture a
realistic construction stages; therefore, processes pertaining to the
installation and elimination procedures of structures are presented
in subsequent section.
The load distribution ratio is the relative load-bearing rate on
the ground, on the primary support member, and on the
concrete lining. When setting the load distribution ratio to 0-0-
100, the secondary support member and concrete lining resist
the overall tunnel load. Using this procedure, evaluating
extreme loads acting on the concrete lining via numerical
analyses is possible. Fig. 5 shows the result of a tunnel load
Fig. 5. Comparison Results for Tunnel Load under Different Load
Distribution Ratio
under a load distribution ratio of 0-0-100 when compared with
the results estimated under a load distribution ratio of 30-40-
30, which is a typical tunnel design. The 0-0-100 load
distribution ratio is the state during ground-lining interaction in
which the maximum load is acting on the secondary support
member. Therefore, by setting the load distribution ratio to 0-0-
100, it is possible to consider the largest tunnel load acting on
the concrete lining compared to any other load distribution
situation, thus enabling a safe tunnel design.
4.3 Analysis Procedure
To evaluate the tunnel loads caused by the GLI model concept,
each analysis was conducted based on the same procedures as
those used with NATM tunnel construction from a practical engi-
neering. The analysis procedures, shown in Fig. 6, consist of eight
steps to set the load distribution ratio.
Step 1) The 2D plain strain numerical mesh including the
tunnel geometry is generated with a boundary condition. The
initial ground stresses are then applied to the numerical
model.
Step 2) The elements of the tunnel above the spring line are
removed to simulate the procedure of the NATM tunnel
excavation. At this time, the load distribution ratio is set to
zero.
Step 3) The primary supports, including soft shotcrete and
rockbolts, are installed in the excavated arch area. The soft
shotcrete and rockbolts are modeled as beam and cable elements,
respectively.
Step 4) The soft shotcrete installed in the previous step is
replaced by hard shotcrete after increasing the elastic modulus by
approximately threefold, and the numerical model is then
executed for the first time. At this time, the load distribution ratio
is set to 100.
Step 5) The elements of the tunnel below the spring line are
also removed.
Step 6) The soft shotcrete and rockbolt are installed in the

− 676 − KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering

 Sang-Seom Jeong, Young-Chul Han, Yong-Min Kim, and Do-Hyun Kim

Fig. 6. Numerical Procedure of NATM Tunnel Analysis for a GLI Model: (a) Step 1, (b) Step 2, (c) Step 3, (d) Step 4, (e) Step 5, (f) Step 6,
(g) Step 7, (h) Step 8

lower excavated area. element-removing procedure (Step 5) would simulate primary

Step 7) The elastic modulus of the soft shotcrete is increased support deterioration. Although the concrete lining is not modeled
and the numerical model is then executed again. throughout the procedure, the unbalanced forces generated by
Step 8) All of the primary supports are removed to generate an the first iteration can be considered as tunnel loads acting on the
unbalanced force in the convergence stage, indicating that the concrete lining.

Vol. 18, No. 2 / March 2014 − 677 −

 Evaluation of the NATM Tunnel Load on Concrete Lining using the Ground Lining Interaction Model

5. Parametric Study tunnel loads for rock grades one to three as calculated with the
GLI model are smaller than those in Terzaghi’s rock mass table
To obtain detailed information about tunnel loads, several pa- and rapidly increase for rock grades of four and lower. The
rametric numerical analyses were conducted while varying the tunnel load height for rocks of grades one to three is less than 0.5
major influencing parameters, in this case a tunnel depth ranging
from 20- to 80 m and an in-situ stress ratio ranging from 0.5- to
2.0. Fig. 7 shows a tunnel cross-section considered in a param-
etric study, which represents a typical NATM tunnel design in
South Korea.

5.1 Effect of the Rock Mass Quality

To investigate how the tunnel loads are influenced by various
rock mass grades, the tunnel loads were calculated using three
different methods: 1) Terzaghi’s formula except for rock grades
one to three; 2) Terzaghi’s rock mass table; and 3) the GLI model.
The tunnel loads based on the GLI model were obtained after
calculating the average values of nodes 17-29 in the crown part
of the tunnel, as shown in Fig. 7. Table 4 summarizes the tunnel
load heights and tunnel loads with varying rock mass grades
after setting the tunnel depth to 40 m and the in-situ stress ratio to
1.0. The tunnel load height is calculated after dividing the tunnel
loads by the unit ground weight.
The tunnel loads from Terzaghi’s rock mass table tend to in-
crease as the rock grades worsen, as shown in Fig. 8(a). Addi-
tionally, Terzaghi’s formula can only be used for soft rock types
that are under grade five due to the cohesion effect. However, the

Fig. 8. Comparison Results for Tunnel Load and Load Height

Under Different Rock Mass Ratings (H = 40 m): (a) Tunnel
Fig. 7. Information About the Soil and Tunnel (Parametric Studies) Load; (b) Load Height

Table 4. Results of Terzaghi's Methods and GLI Model (Tunnel Depth: 40 m)

Tunnel Load, Proof (kPa) Load Height, Hp (m)
Rock mass ratings RMR Terzaghi's rock Terzaghi's Terzaghi's rock Terzaghi's
GLI model GLI model
mass table formula mass table formula
1st Grade 81~100 87.99 - 3.91 3.26 - 0.14
2nd Grade 61~80 146.36 - 7.36 5.63 - 0.28
3rd Grade 41~60 199.99 - 11.26 8.00 - 0.45
4th Grade 21~40 244.41 - 24.83 10.63 - 1.08
5th Grade < 20 285.93 186.07 96.03 13.00 0.33 4.36
Weathered rock - 338.46 264.17 178.95 16.12 0.47 8.52
Weathered soil - 417.16 301.95 264.11 20.86 0.58 13.21

− 678 − KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering

 Sang-Seom Jeong, Young-Chul Han, Yong-Min Kim, and Do-Hyun Kim

Fig. 9. Comparison Results for Tunnel Load under Different Tunnel Depths: (a) 20 m, (b) 40 m, (c) 60 m, (d) 80 m

m, which is similar to the damage zone from the excavation blast
(Lim, 1996; Lee et al., 2000), as shown in Fig. 8(b).
5.2 Effect of Tunnel Depth
When designing tunnels, it is important to consider the various
rock and ground conditions as well as the tunnel depth. The tun-
nel depth is assumed to be 20 m in urban areas and 80 m in moun-
tainous areas. Fig. 9 compares the results for tunnel loads with
varying tunnel depths.
The tunnel loads obtained by Terzaghi’s rock mass table pre-
sent no differences for varying tunnel depths. Thus, Terzaghi’s
rock mass table does not consider the tunnel depth. The tunnel
loads estimated by Terzaghi’s formula increase as the tunnel
depth increases. The GLI model provides significantly smaller
tunnel loads for shallow tunnel depths when compared to those
by Terzaghi’s formula. However, as the tunnel depth increases,
the tunnel loads obtained with the GLI model in weathered rock
are similar to those with formulated using Terzaghi’s method.
situ stress ratio ranges from 0.5 to 4.0 and is significantly af-
fected by the joint condition and ground strength, particularly for
long tunnels. In this study, tunnel loads with different in-situ stress
ratios (0.5-2.0) for various rock conditions are compared.
When the vertical stress is two times greater than the horizontal
stress (K0 = 0.5), the tunnel loads estimated by Terzaghi’s
method and by the GLI model are fairly similar (Fig. 10(a)).
However, when the in-situ stress ratio (K0) is 2.0, the tunnel
loads tend to decrease greatly for both Terzaghi’s method and the
GLI model when compared to an in-situ stress ratio (K0) of 0.5.
Thus, Ter- zaghi’s rock mass table cannot consider the effect of
the in-situ stress ratios, and Terzaghi’s formula cannot be used for
high grade rocks. However, the GLI model is not only
compatible with all rock grades but also affords results similar to
those of Terzaghi’s rock mass table under the condition of a
decreasing in-situ stress ratio.
6. Proposed Ground Lining Interaction Formula

5.3 Effect of the in-situ Stress Ratio The GLI model can reduce the tunnel load acting on concrete
According to numerous domestic ground investigations, the in- lining by considering the arching effect of the ground and by

Vol. 18, No. 2 / March 2014 − 679 −

 Evaluation of the NATM Tunnel Load on Concrete Lining using the Ground Lining Interaction Model
Fig. 10. Comparison Results for Tunnel Load under Different in-situ
Ratios (H = 40 m): (a) Terzaghi’s Methods, (b) GLI Model
reducing the tunnel load height which is linked to the magnitude
of the tunnel load. This section presents a tunnel load formula
based on the GLI model results from this study.
A simplified GLI equation for estimating tunnel loads is devel-
oped by interpreting the results of numerical analyses. The pro-
posed equation is a function of the unit weight (γ), elastic mo-
dulus (E), cohesion (c), friction angle (φ), and tunnel depth (H).
The proposed GLI formula is able to consider the elastic modulus
(E) of the ground that surrounds the tunnel. In contrast, Terzaghi’s
formula does not consider the elastic modulus which is an im-
portant engineering factor; for this reason, the elastic modulus
for the given rock and ground conditions must be considered when
estimating tunnel loads. The proposed GLI formula is written as
E In this study, a new tunnel load evaluation method (Ground
γ ( B + H ) – c ----------------- -
PGLI = --------------------------- ⎛ e
1000γ B⎞
(7)
7 tan φ ⎝ ⎠
here, PGLI is the vertical tunnel load (kPa), γ is the unit weight of
the ground (kN/m3), B is the same parameter in Terzaghi’s
− 680 −
Fig. 11. Distribution of Tunnel Loads for Various Ground Conditions
(H = 40 m)
Fig. 12. Distribution of Tunnel Loads for Various Tunnel Depths
formula, H is the soil depth above the tunnel (m), c is the ground
cohesion (kPa), φ is the friction angle (o), and E is the elastic
modulus (kPa).
Fig. 11 shows the tunnel load based on the GLI model and the
proposed formula when compared with Terzaghi’s formula. For
a tunnel depth of 40 m, the correlation factor is 0.994, as shown
in Fig. 11. In Fig. 12, the numerical analyses results using the GLI
model and the results estimated by the proposed formula are com-
pared. The correlation factor between the results is 0.977 for tun-
nel depths of 20-80 m. Therefore, the tunnel load estimated by
the proposed formula is nearly identical to that estimated using
the GLI model. Because the proposed formula is based on the
GLI model, the tunnel load estimated by the proposed equation
is smaller than that using Terzaghi’s method. The ability to esti-
mate the tunnel load regardless of the tunnel depth is another
advantage of the proposed formula.
7. Conclusions
Lining Interaction model) was presented and discussed while
considering the rock grade, tunnel depth, and in-situ stress ratio.
Moreover, a new equation that evaluates the tunnel load acting
on the concrete lining is proposed using the results obtained from
KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering
 Sang-Seom Jeong, Young-Chul Han, Yong-Min Kim, and Do-Hyun Kim
the GLI model. From the findings of this study, the following
conclusions are drawn.
Based on the results of Terzaghi’s rock mass table, the tunnel
loads for every rock grade tend to be overestimated. Terzaghi’s
formula can only be used for soft rocks and soils. However, the
GLI model can be adapted to all rock grades. This model can
also reduce the tunnel load by up to 30% on the crown part of the
tunnel.
Terzaghi’s rock mass table is inadequate when the effect of the
tunnel depth must be considered. However, Terzaghi’s formula
and the GLI model afford similar results for soft rock and soil for
deep tunnel depths (deeper than 40 m). Because the GLI model
provides reduced results for tunnel loads with shallow tunnel
depths (less than 40 m), adopting the GLI model for shallow
tunnels is more feasible.
When estimating tunnel loads, Terzaghi’s rock mass table ig-
nores the effect of the in-situ stress ratio. When the in-situ stress
ratio is greater than 1.0, applying the GLI model rather than
Terzaghi’s formula is better because the results estimated by the
latter tend to be overestimated.
The proposed tunnel load equation is based on the results esti-
mated by the GLI model. This model reduces tunnel loads, which
prevents the overestimation of the actual tunnel loads acting on
the concrete lining. Moreover, the proposed equation considers
the effect of the ground’s elastic modulus.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the National Research Foundation
of Korea (NRF) grant funded by the Korea government (MSIP)
(No. 2011-0030040).
References
Barton, N., Lien, R., and Lunde, J. (1974). “Engineering classification
of rock masses for the design of tunnel support.” Rock Mechanics,
Vol. 6, No. 4. pp. 189-236.
Bhasin, R. and Grimstad, E. (1996). “The use of stress-strength relation-
ship in the assessment of tunnel stability.” Tunneling and Under-
ground Space Technology, Vol. 11, No. 1, pp. 93-98.
Chang, S., Lee, S., Suh, Y., Yun, K., Park, Y., and Kim, S. (2010). “A
study on field change case of tunnel concrete lining designs using
GLI (Ground Lining Interaction) model.” Journal of Korean Society
for Rock Mechanics Tunnel & Underground Space, Vol. 20, No. 1,
pp. 58-64.
Chang, S., Seo, S., and Lee, S. (2003). “Design of the secondary tunnel
lining using a ground primary support-secondary lining interaction
model.” Proc. of International Symposium on the Fusion Technology
of Geosystem Engineering, Rock Engineering and Geophysical Ex-
ploration, pp. 109-114.
Craig, R. N. and Muir Wood, A. M. (1978). A review of tunnel lining
practice in the United Kingdom, Supplementary Report, TRRL
Suppl Rpt 335 Monograph, Transport and Road Research Laboratory,
Berkshire England.
Deere, D. U., Peck, R. B., Park, H. W., Monsees, J. E., and Schmidt, B.
(1970). “Design of tunnel support systems.” Highway Research Re-
Vol. 18, No. 2 / March 2014 − 681 −
cord, Issue 307.
Duddeck, H. and Erdmann, J. (1985). “Structural design models for tun-
nels in soft soil.” Underground Space, Vol. 9, pp. 246-259.
FLAC 2D (2000). FLAC Ver 4.0 manual, Itasca Consulting Groups,
Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA.
Goel, R. K., Jethwa, J. L., and Paithankar, A. G. (1995). “Indian experi-
ences with Q and RMR systems.” Tunnelling and Underground
Space Technology , Vol. 10, No. 1, pp. 97-109.
Parker, H. W. (2004). Planning and site investigation in tunneling, 1o
Congresso Brasileiro de Túneis e Estruturas Subterrâneas, Seminário
Internacional South American Tunnelling, Brazilian Association of
Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, Brazil.
Iftimie, T. (1998). Overview and a new hypothesis on earth pressure
acting on circular tunnel lining, Tunnels and Metropolises, Negro Jr
& Ferreira (Eds.), pp. 267-272.
Janssen, H. A. (1895). “Versucheüber getreidedruck in silozellen.” Zeit-
schrift des Vereins deutscher Ingenieure, XXXIX, Vol. 39, No. 35,
pp.1045-1049 (in German).
Jeong, S. S. and Seo, D. H. (2004). “Analysis of tieback walls using pro-
posed p-y curves for coupled soil springs.” Computer and Geotech-
nics, Vol. 31, No. 6, pp. 443-456.
Jiang, Y., Yoneda, H., and Tanabashi, Y. (2001). “Theoretical estimation
of loosening pressure on tunnels in soft rocks.” Tunneling and
Underground Space Technology, Vol. 16, No. 2, pp. 99-105.
Kim, H. J. and Eisenstein, Z. (1998). “Prediction of lining loads from
case histories.” World Tunnel Congress '98, Sao Paulo, Brazil, pp.
299-304.
Kim, H. J. and Eisenstein, Z. (2006). “Prediction of tunnel lining loads
using correction factors.” Engineering Geology, Vol. 85, pp. 302-
312.
Korea Rail Network Authority (2010). Seoul metropolitan high-speed
railway (Suseo~Pyoungtaek), Design of Roadbed and Optimization
of Concrete Lining.
Koyama, Y., Okano, N., Shimizu, M., Fujiki, I., and Yoneshima, K.
(1995). “In-situ measurement and consideration on shield tunnel in
diluvium deposit.” Proceedings of tunnel Engineering, JSCE, Vol. 7,
pp. 385-390.
Lee, I. M., Kim, S. K., Lee, D. W., Choi, J. W., Kim, D. H., and Kim, Y.
U. (2000). “Optimization of tunnel blasting design by finite element
method.” Journal of Korean Geotechnical Society (KGS), Vol. 16,
No. 5, pp. 63-74.
Lim, S. B. (1996). An evaluation of dynamic damage adjacent to a
blasthole in tunnel excavations, PhD Thesis, Kyounghee University,
Korea.
Mashimo, H. and Ishimura, T. (2003). “Evaluation of the load on shield
tunnel lining in gravel.” Tunneling and Underground Space Tech-
nology, Vol. 18, Nos. 2-3, pp. 233-241.
Negro J. A. (1988). Design of shallow tunnels in soft ground, PhD
Thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Alberta,
Edmonton, Canada.
O'Rourke, T. D. (1984). “Guidelines for tunnel lining design.” American
Society of Civil Engineers, pp. 82.
Park, J. J., Kim, D. H., and Jeong, S. S. (2012). “Analysis of tunnel
lining behavior under tunnel load.” Journal of the Korean
Geotechnical Society, Vol. 28, No. 8, pp. 79-88.
Rose, D. (1982). “Revising Terzaghi’s tunnel rock load coefficients.”
Proc. 23rd U.S. Symp. on Rock Mechanics, Berkeley, CA., AIME,
New York, pp. 953-960.
Seo, S. H., Chang, S. B., and Lee, S. D. (2002). “An analysis model of
the secondary tunnel lining considering ground-primary support-
 Evaluation of the NATM Tunnel Load on Concrete Lining using the Ground Lining Interaction Model

secondary lining interaction.” Journal of Korean Society for Rock
Mechanics, Vol. 12, No. 2, pp. 107-114.
Singh, B., Jethwa, J. C., Dube, A. I., and Singh, B. (1992). “Correlation
between observed support pressure and rock mass quality.” Tunnel-
ling and Underground Space Technology, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 59-74.
Terzaghi, K. (1943). Theoretical soil mechanics, Wiley, New York
Terzaghi, K. (1946). Rock defects and loads on tunnel support, Rock
Tunneling with Steel Supports, Proctor, R. V. and White, T. L.,
Commercial Shearing Co, pp. 17-99.
Whittaker, B. N. and Frith, R. C. (1990). “Tunnelling-design, stability and
construction.” The Institution of Mining and Metallurgy, London.
Wood, A. M. M. (1975). “The circular tunnel in elastic ground.” Geo-
technique, Vol. 25, No. 1, pp. 115-127.

− 682 − KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering