Innov. Infrastruct. Solut.
(2017) 2:52
DOI 10.1007/s41062-017-0071-x
TECHNICAL PAPER
Minimizing the use of concrete in tunnels and caverns: comparing
NATM and NMT
Nick Barton1
Received: 4 May 2017 / Accepted: 2 June 2017
Ó Springer International Publishing AG 2017
Abstract For many decades, a tunnelling method has
been in use which effectively minimizes the use of con-
crete, which should be one of the goals in our CO2-pro-
ducing planet. We call the method NMT (Norwegian
Method of Tunnelling) and emphasize its ‘single-shell’
characteristics, to distinguish it clearly from double-shell
NATM (the so-called New Austrian Tunnelling Method),
which is recommended to have (ASG, NATM: the Aus-
trian practice of conventional tunnelling 2010): shotcrete,
mesh, lattice girders, rock bolts (if in-rock), drainage
fleece, membrane, and the final load bearing and often
steel-reinforced concrete lining, including the invert when
in poor rock conditions. This tunnelling method is
inevitably several times more expensive, uses many times
the volume of concrete, takes longer to build, and
requires at least a ten times larger labour force than sin-
gle-shell NMT. The single-shell tunnels for road or rail or
hydropower or water transfer, or for large caverns for
storage of oil or food, or for hydropower machine and
transformer halls, can be made stable by judicious
application of a well-used ([2000 case record based) the
so-called Q-system of rock mass quality estimation. The
latter encompasses a rock mass quality scale from 0.001
(equivalent to a serious fault zone, where we also may
need a local concrete lining) to 1000 (equivalent to
massive unjointed rock) where careful blasting will
remove the need even for shotcrete. In general, rock
This paper was selected from GeoMEast 2017—Sustainable Civil
Infrastructures: Innovative Infrastructure Geotechnology.
& Nick Barton
nickrbarton@hotmail.com
1
NB&A, Oslo, Norway
masses where we need tunnels or caverns will lie closer to
‘mid-range’ (i.e. closer to Q = 1 which is described as
‘poor quality’). Here we would need combinations of
corrosion-protected rock bolts and high quality fibre-re-
inforced shotcrete, with stainless steel or polypropylene
fibres. We may also need systematic high-pressure pre-
injection of micro-cement and micro-silica, which may
add 20% to the (low) starting cost of the NMT excava-
tion. Written as B ? S(fr) in short-hand, NMT has rock
bolt c/c spacing in metres and shotcrete thickness in
centimetres, as specified by the range of Q values and
excavation dimensions. The details are also affected by
the planned use. For instance, at our record-breaking
Olympic cavern of 60 m span (for housing 5400 specta-
tors or later concert goers), B = 2.5 m c/c ? S(fr) 10 cm
were (and remain 25 years later) the stabilizing and per-
manent measures of support and reinforcement. Defor-
mation monitoring and distinct element (jointed rock)
numerical verification showed 7–8 mm of maximum
deformation in the arch. The moderate Q value range of
quality of 2–30 (poor/fair/good) and RQD = 60–90
indicated a well-jointed gneiss, which had only moderate
UCS = 90 MPa compressive strength.
keywords Tunnels
NMT
NATM
Overbreak

Shotcrete
Concrete
Collapse
Introduction
In view of the above abstracted summary, and as a valid
challenge, it would be interesting to know how mid-
European, specifically Austrian NATM (double-shell)
designers would have tackled the design of such a large
cavern, and what thickness of concrete would have been
123
52 Page 2 of 24
proposed. The catch question would then be that if they had
considered concrete unnecessary, or too complex in such a
large excavation, why is it apparently necessary in exca-
vations of a fraction of the size? NATM is used in a large
number of transport tunnels and metro projects around the
world, and NATM proponents, not just Austrians, seem to
be of the opinion that this is the best and conventional way
to construct tunnels.
Commonly, in road tunnels or twin-track rail tunnels,
NATM designs might specify preliminary shotcrete of
20–30-cm thickness, but actually 40–60 cm or more due to
covering of lattice girders and partial filling of overbreak
caused by blasting. Usually, non-uniform, but specified
35–45 cm of final concrete thickness may bring the total
concrete thickness in NATM between 75 and 100 cm. So
conservatively speaking, we are facing a four to five times
greater use of concrete in NATM than NMT. This is even if
we add a 15-cm-thick PC-element free-standing bolted
liner, with outer (hidden) membrane, for the sake of aes-
thetic appearance, as in many NMT road tunnels, where
only 10–15 cm of S(fr) and the systematic bolting is used
for the permanent stability. The only loading involved in
the PC-elements is self-weight due to the drained nature of
the design. When we pre-inject effectively, the water
pressure is pushed several metres into the rock mass, and
bolt holes of 3–5 m length are not expected to leak. The
latter is the purest version of a single-shell tunnel: pre-
injection ? B ? S(fr) ? (occasionally) RRS (to be
described later).
It will probably be clear for the reader by now that
because of the lesser use of concrete (sprayed or occa-
sionally cast) in single-shell NMT tunnelling, it is neces-
sary to have a reliable method of selecting the appropriate
thickness of the relatively thin shotcrete lining and for
selecting the appropriate spacing of the rock bolts, each
used as permanent support and reinforcement of the rock
mass. This is where the Q-system comes in, which is a
method quite unlike any used in NATM, where tunnel
performance classes 1–7 seem to be the closest (Austrian-
based) equivalent.
The Q-system has been used for 40 years (since [11])
for core logging, exposure logging, and tunnel face logging
following each blast, each to assist with the selection of the
appropriate reinforcement and support classes. In [17] a
long overdue Q-system update of mesh-reinforced S(mr) to
fibre-reinforced S(fr) shotcrete was made to reflect its
widespread use since the 1980s. Remarkably, this updated
technique does not seem to have come to NATM in any big
way, and is seldom recommended by Austrian consultants,
not even in their standard: AGS, [1]. S(mr) is considered
and frequently seen to be, in a large number of countries, a
very inefficient way to cover and support tunnels with
overbreak, as ‘shadow’ results, and the mesh cannot be
123
Innov. Infrastruct. Solut. (2017) 2:52
sufficiently bent into the overbreak. On paper and on the
computer it looks efficient, as no overbreak is ever shown.
The first four parameters in the Q-system: RQD/Jn 9 Jr/
Ja, representing the fundamentals of relative block size and
inter-block joint friction, have been used for three decades
in principal mining countries for mine stope dimensioning,
and Q is often used for designing mine roadways. The
Q value correlates with deformation modulus, P-wave
velocity, and with deformation, where D (mm) & span(m)/
Q is the central trend of hundreds of tunnel and cavern
deformation data. It is wise to check ‘plastic-zone-prone’
numerical continuum models, and distinct element UDEC
or 3DEC models against such empiricism, using a more
accurate equation including depth or stress level. This is in
case of exaggerated joint continuity in the jointed models.
The motto ‘a posteriori is more reliable than a priori’ needs
to be constantly remembered when viewing the remarkably
complex equations which may lie behind the ‘a priori’
assumptions of a popular and colourful FEM method used
by many of the younger generation for assumed tunnel
design. The reality is usually quite different from the
continuum model, and more attention to the usually ani-
sotropic behaviour of rock masses is required, using
models with jointing, but having realistic degrees of per-
sistence—not continuous joints from boundary to
boundary.
A brief summary of NATM
Because of the cost and time involved in construction, and
the fact that double-shell NATM tunnels and caverns are
used in prominent transport projects, such as motorways,
metro-stations and high-speed rail tunnels, they are the
frequent subject of conference papers and tunnel magazine
articles. The description ‘double-shell’ is used to confirm
that a final concrete lining will cover the temporary support
phase of (typically) lattice girders, mesh-reinforced shot-
crete, and rock bolts. There are variations of the latter
involving fibre-reinforced shotcrete (generally a superior
choice) and no rock bolts (an adverse choice, though if
rock cover is absent, this is necessary unless self-drilling
bolts are used). Typical sequences of NATM are shown in
Fig. 1a, b, from the Austrian Society of Geomechanics [1].
In Fig. 2a, b, examples of the operation of spraying in
the lattice girders is shown on the left, and the final tem-
porary support phase of NATM is shown on the right.
Moving on to the fixing of drainage fleece and membrane
and the final concrete lining, shown in Figs. 3 and 4,
obviously in different projects, actually on different con-
tinents, we perhaps see why NATM is a serious under-
taking, deserving some reporting in conferences or
tunnelling magazines as the investment is high and the total
Innov. Infrastruct. Solut. (2017) 2:52 Page 3 of 24 52

Fig. 1 a Top-heading phase of NATM with ‘steel rib, wire mesh,

shotcrete application’ and the rock bolting. This is quite a critical
phase if the choice of tunnelling method is indeed double-shell
NATM. One should not delay with the rock bolting. This is especially
important when reaching jointed rock, when overbreak makes lattice
girders less reliable, and when anisotropic ‘point’ loads may be
experienced, i.e. usually not a part of the more simple design
assumptions. b Benching down, invert, and final concrete lining. This
follows the fixing of a drainage fleece and membrane. NATM is
clearly a labour intensive method which is several times as costly as
the more commonly used single-shell NMT. ‘NATM: the Austrian
practice of conventional tunnelling’ [1] Fig. 1 continued

time of construction is inevitably quite long. In their Introduction to NMT

helpful guide, with the drawings of Fig. 1 directly repro-
duced, we can note that the Austrians title the NATM as To summarise at the start: NMT is single-shell tunnelling
follows: ‘The Austrian practice of conventional tunnelling’ with a much reduced thicknesses of concrete (i.e. shotcrete)
[1]. lining. Besides various important contractual elements (see
All that we see in Fig. 2a, b so far is a temporary sup- multi-author descriptions in [12] it consists of the follow-
port, which is not credited in the final concrete load-bear- ing basic elements:
ing lining, which is delayed by a year or two on many
projects. So this is a hazardous phase in reality, especially 1. Q-system logging for selecting a permanent and
if rock bolts are not and cannot be used due to deep immediately applied support.
weathering. There have been notable collapses of the 2. S(fr) steel or polypropylene fibre-reinforced shotcrete.
temporary support phase of NATM, which will be illus- Typically 5–20-cm range.
trated later in this paper. These are sometimes caused by 3. B (utg)—CT-type with multiple corrosion protection.
unexpected anisotropic loading caused by jointed rock Typically 1.0–2.5 m c/c.
which is suddenly not loading the lattice girders as 4. RRS (rib-reinforced shotcrete arches, bolted) when
expected from the isotropic modeling. needed in low Q rock masses.

123
52 Page 4 of 24
Fig. 2 a The temporary support phase of NATM, spraying in the
lattice girders and mesh in the arch of a metro station cavern. This
particular arch is unbolted due to the assumed B3 m of rock cover,
consisting of fragmented and weathered gneiss. The resulting
temporary support phase is shown on the right. b The top-heading
of a 20-m span motorway tunnel, one of two parallel tubes. The
5. Pre-grouting for dry tunnel, displacing water. Protects
environment, prevents differential settlement damage
to buildings founded on over-lying clays.
6. Free-standing, bolted PC-elements with outer mem-
brane for dry tunnel, but allowing drainage. Gives
improved ‘finish’ and lighting for main road tunnels.
Observant readers will have noticed the ‘more com-
monly used’ reference to NMT in the Fig. 1b NATM fig-
ure caption. This is because single-shell B ? S(fr)
(permanent bolting and fibre-reinforced shotcrete) which is
most frequently chosen with the help of the Q-system, is
such a common method in hydropower tunnels, mine
roadways, hydropower caverns, and countless road and rail
tunnels in many countries. Of course the alternative RMR
123
Innov. Infrastruct. Solut. (2017) 2:52
‘bulges’ on either side are the already completed pilot side drifts. The
shotcreting between and into the lattice girders is near the specified
minimum of 30 cm in places, but the contractor has already used
something like 200% of the specified thickness of S(–), i.e.
unreinforced shotcrete, due to the need to fill inevitable overbreak
(in soil, saprolite, and finally jointed phyllite)
rock mass description method of [15] is also a source of
support class selection for quite a large number of single-
shell excavations.
The fact that such single-shell tunnels are constructed so
much faster and more cheaply means that they are less
frequently to be found in the pages of tunnelling journals.
The designers and contractors have probably moved on to
other projects. Note that the world record for a completed
single-shell tunnel is presently 5.8 km in 54 weeks (104 m/
week average progress for a single face mine access tunnel)
with a peak of 150 m in 1 week. The tunnel section was
38 m2, and it was driven in coal measure rocks (by D ? B)
and needed some B ? S(fr). Smaller drill-and-blast tunnels
with minimal need of any (single-shell) support have been
driven at a peak of 165 m in the record-breaking week.
Innov. Infrastruct. Solut. (2017) 2:52
Fig. 3 a In these photographs, we see the difficulty of drainage fleece
and membrane fixing due to the effect of overbreak (left) and the
complexity of a cavern excavation corner (right). Finally comes the
concrete lining, certainly a challenge for the 3D shuttering in a metro
cavern, when not choosing the far simpler single-shell NMT.
Recently, S(fr) was even used for stations in London clay in the
major Crossrail project. However, it was very thick and without bolts.
b It can be readily estimated that approximately 15 km of membrane
Both these records belong to Norwegian contractors,
respectively, LNS and Veidekke.
Figure 5 illustrates the principal stages of NMT. Note
the central activity ‘Q-logging’ which now has a formal
‘owner’s half-hour’ for their engineering geologist to map
and come to agreement (if possible) with the contractor’s
engineering geologist, on the required support class for the
(usually) 4–5 m of rock mass that has just been exposed by
the last drill-and-blast tunnel advance. They agree not on
the temporary support, which the contractor may add for
immediate safety, but on the permanent support for that
Page 5 of 24 52
welds per 1 km of tunnel are needed in a large tunnel. If there are flaws
in this welding work, and if the membrane leaks in a specific location,
it is actually impossible to locate where the repair is needed. In the
case of a pre-injected NMT tunnel, an eventual leakage point is
readily seen and repaired in the correct location both during
construction, or afterwards. This is because the water cannot flow
behind bonded shotcrete, as it can behind a smooth and slippery
membrane-on-concrete interface
short section of tunnel, such as B 1.6 c/c ? 12 cm of S(fr).
This is completely applied before more than two or three
rounds of advance.
There are a number of compelling reasons why Nor-
wegian and Swedish contractors were quick to adopt wet
process S(fr) from the end of 1970s. (First seen by the
writer in a hydropower cavern in western Norway in 1979.
First used in a road tunnel in Norway in 1981). Besides the
volumetric 15–25 m3 per hour application rates, the pro-
duct gives steel-reinforced concrete in one pass, and can be
built rapidly to desired thickness when using non-alkali
123
52 Page 6 of 24 Innov. Infrastruct. Solut. (2017) 2:52

Fig. 4 The final completed concrete lining stage of the Channel chalk marl. Nevertheless, drainage holes were urgently needed in this
Tunnel sub-sea (cross-over) cavern on the right. The temporary critical phase of the project. Note the several metres distance to the
support phase of the same project does not fill one with confidence face and the ineffectiveness of a very broad mesh that attracts
about the effectiveness (or need) of lattice girders in the mostly dry corrosion and does little to strengthen the shotcrete

Fig. 5 Some details concerning

NMT. Tunnels are dry, drained,
and PC-element cladded (a free-
standing ‘drip-shield’) if
required for road or rail use.
(‘Pigging’ = scaling). These
details date from a 20–25-year-
old Norwegian contractor
brochure, and have remained
basically unchanged, as the
resulting tunnel, even with the
optional free-standing cladding-
and-membrane, is
approximately  of the price of
a truly double-shell NATM
tunnel. See for instance Barton
[4]

accelerators. It has low permeability, there is no ‘shadow’
[as with S(mr) seen in Fig. 5b]. It fills overbreak perfectly
(Fig. 6) and due to the fibres, cures better even if applied
too thinly on convex ‘corners’ or noses.
Figure 7 illustrates, to an unusually extreme degree,
why S(fr) is preferred to S(mr) because of exceptional
overbreak. In the examples shown, a very ineffective mesh
and therefore an ineffective composite S(mr) would result
from attempted use of the NATM recommended S(mr).
Long ago, close to 40 years ago, it was realized how big
were the advantages of using S(fr). It is strange indeed that
even today, Austrian consultants can recommend designing
tunnels with S(mr) when there is overbreak, and S(fr)—
which they do not seem to have experience with—when
there is no overbreak. These very surprising recommen-
dations are counter-intuitive and diametrically incorrect.
One only needs to inspect Fig. 6 to appreciate this (Fig. 8).
Figure 9 is designed to be self-explanatory regarding the
importance of Jn/Jr C6 to explain whether overbreak is
likely to occur. This has by now been used several times by
contractors in claims situations, because when overbreak is
inevitable, but is not predicted during site investigations,
then the contractor will be forced to use a significantly
larger volume of shotcrete or final concrete than was
specified, due to the need to fill the overbreak. This last
comment applies strictly to projects where NATM is the

123
Innov. Infrastruct. Solut. (2017) 2:52 Page 7 of 24 52

Fig. 6 Top-pair S(fr) in a pre-

injected high-speed rail tunnel
driven in shales and limestones.
Note the first layer of 5 cm of
S(fr) applied close to the face,
likewise the permanent CT-
bolts, also applied close to the
face. Bottom pair The old-
fashioned method of temporary
support S(mr), still
recommended in NATM. This
results in great difficulties for
the contractor, if significant
overbreak. See Vandevall [20]
concerning the sketches

Fig. 7 Examples of major

overbreak to emphasize what
may happen when there are
three well-developed joint sets.
As seen on the next page, it
depends on the Q-parameter
ratio: Jn/Jr. The overbreak is at
a metro project and in the pilot
top-heading of an incorrectly
orientated set of parallel
hydropower caverns

design method. In the case of single-shell NMT, the CT-rock bolts

increase in shotcrete volume will be related with the
‘roughness’ (or increased length of the perimeter, as drawn
in a tunnel or cavern cross-section). It is not necessary in
NMT to bring the perimeter back to its more circular (or
D-shaped) origin, by filling the volume created by over-
break with concrete. We will illustrate this later, when
presenting the Q-system design chart for choosing the
relevant quantities of B ? S(fr).
The second component of NMT, or the first if written as
B ? S(fr) is the systematic bolting, which is a very
important part of NMT because of the need to have a
corrosion-protected solution, since there will never be a
final concrete lining to rely on. Figure 10 illustrates, in the
form of a short demo length, the principles of the PVC-
sleeved CT-bolt, which was developed by Ørsta Stål more

123
52 Page 8 of 24 Innov. Infrastruct. Solut. (2017) 2:52

Fig. 8 Some details of the S(fr) robotic shotcreting trucks, from location at least half-way up the boom for better control of the work.
AMV, as advertised more than 20 years ago, and of course still in A detail to note in the 20–25-year-old S(fr) ‘menu’ is that modern
widespread use in Norwegian transport tunnels. Note operator steel fibre dosages require just 25–35 kg/m3

Fig. 9 Reasons why the Q-system ratio Jn/Jr (number of joint sets/joint roughness) is important for determining if there will be overbreak or not,
despite careful blasting. Now used in some tunnel claim situations. Barton [5]

123
Innov. Infrastruct. Solut. (2017) 2:52
Fig. 10 The principles of the CT-bolt, which has multiple layers of
protection against corrosion. Lengths could be 3, 4, 5 or 6 m. Note the
cross-section with the outer (only) cracked grout annulus, the normal
fate of conventional bolts
Fig. 11 Reisseck II pumped storage, Austria. This cavern photograph
indicates that even in Austria, someone decided to use ‘single-shell’
S(mr) ? B in this large machine hall. Similar decisions could/should
be made about smaller tunnels, if one had serious concern about
unnecessary concrete use. Of course S(fr) would be preferable, as then
the concrete quantity is minimized and acts more efficiently
than 25 years ago. It is now marketed also by Dywidag.
The steel bolt is galvanized, epoxy-painted, has an inner
annulus of grout and an outer one, as the grout is pumped
Page 9 of 24 52
Fig. 12 English consultants finally designed sprayed concrete linings
(SCL) for some Crossrail stations in London clay. The writer was part
of a Norwegian ‘delegation’ visiting the Jubilee Line Extension in the
1990s, and of course suggested ‘why not S(fr) in the hard London
clay’ for the long-in-coming Crossrail project? In [9] we discussed
NATM contra NMT, and also suggested combining the best
components of each.
into the inner annulus, displacing air and any water as it
flows around the wedge-lock anchor and then down the
outer annulus to the exit tube. Bolts can be fully grouted
after S(fr) application if desired, using a short extension
tube. The joint or crack seen in the top-right photo is
typical when bolts are installed in jointed rock. Deforma-
tion with tunnel advance would be expected to crack the
usual single thickness of grout which could start corrosion
if there was oxygenated water flow. The CT-bolt has four
layers remaining (Figs. 11, 12).
RRS contra lattice girders
In the Grimstad and Barton [8] and Barton and Grimstad
[17] updates of tunnel and cavern support methods using
the Q-system, we changed the earlier (1974) S(mr) (mesh-
reinforced) Q-support recommendation to the modern wet
process S(fr) (fibre-reinforced) method, because S(fr) had
already been widely used for more than a decade. At this
time, attention was also drawn to the monitored results
shown in Fig. 13. Ward et al. [21] had monitored different
tunnel support methods in an experimental tunnel in
mudstones, at the Kielder project in NE England. The
obvious advantages of immediately combining B ? S (not
even mesh- or fibre- reinforced shotcrete) were very clear
reasons why steel sets (or lattice girders) had never/will
never be intended components of Q-based NMT support.
The reasons are multiple:
1. It is difficult to make good contact between the tunnel
(or cavern) perimeter and the lattice girder, especially
if there is deep overbreak.
123
52 Page 10 of 24 Innov. Infrastruct. Solut. (2017) 2:52

Fig. 13 Avoidance of steel sets

(or lattice girders) remains an
important advisory for NMT Q-
system users. This suggestion
has not always been followed,
even in Norway, and one may
wonder at the confidence of
those using unbolted free-
standing structures. There have
been some dramatic failures
when unexpected loads have
resulted from unstable rock
masses, and the isotropic
loading assumptions, as might
be reasonable from soils, fail
completely due to anisotropy

Fig. 14 Left the principal of RRS. This is a much sounder scientific (16 mm bar) ribs, prior to spraying thick individual RRS (rib-
method than unbolted, deformable lattice girders. Right a road tunnel reinforced shotcrete) arches. The left-hand figure from [3] shows the
through a section of faulted rock. Note systematically bolted important sequences involved

Fig. 15 Left Bolted RRS arches used in western drift of a 28-m
station cavern, with extensions needed when gradually removing the
pillar (not shown, on right side) below a deep clay-filled valley in
downtown Oslo (National Theatre Station). Right lattice girders in a
part of the 35 m span Holmestrand Station. The ‘half’ girders in the
distance are temporarily supported on slim columns (see greater detail
in Fig. 16). If they are bolted, and with smooth foundation S(fr) then a
good result might be achieved. Similar volumes of S(fr) in both cases,
but large difference in safety level if lattice girders were unbolted, as
is normal

123
Innov. Infrastruct. Solut. (2017) 2:52 Page 11 of 24 52

2. Rock mass deformation is needed to make ‘solid’ but

Fig. 16 The largest underground railway station ever built in rock,
with a span of 35 m is to be found parallel to this steep scarp in
Holmestrand, in SE Norway. A surprising (for Norway) use of lattice
girders reportedly bolted in this case. A final free-standing bolted roof
of steel plates was used in place of cast concrete
only local contact with the steel. Rock mass strength
may be reduced in the wrong places as a result.
3. When load starts to be applied by less stable parts of
the excavation perimeter, the footings of the lattice
girder will inevitably deform by a finite amount.
4. Strain and resulting stress must build up in the steel
bars of the lattice girder for it to finally apply
resistance to further deformation.
One could roughly estimate that 25–50 mm of defor-
mation might occur in this collective straining of the rock
girder combination, which as mentioned, also involves the
(elephant) footing with enlarged area for spreading load
when in soft ground.
The NMT alternative to lattice girders or steel sets is
RRS, which means (steel) rib-reinforced shotcrete arches.
The principles of this method are illustrated in Fig. 14,
showing the arrangement of the reinforcing bars, which at
16 mm diameter are neither too heavy (collectively) nor
too stiff. In fact, if a strong overbreak dominates in some
part of the periphery of the tunnel, the preliminary and
smoothing shotcrete arch can allow for some bending into
the overbreak. This is defensible because the RRS is bolted
at 1 m intervals around the arch. Figure 15 shows an
example (left).
In Fig. 15, one may note the possibility of bending RRS
into architectural shape or into major overbreak, as the
16-mm diameter bars are easier to handle than, for
instance, the typical 25 9 25 9 32 mm, or
20 9 20 9 25 mm three-bar triangular lattice girders. The
‘location’ of the extra secure RRS support and reinforce-
ment option is shown by the white arrow on the poor rock

Fig. 17 The provision of RRS

(not the inflexible and unbolted
lattice girders) is for ‘area 8’ in
the Q-support diagram (see
arrow). This chart is the [17]
update: changing the 1974
recommendation of S or S(mr)
to the more modern S(fr).
Besides the RRS dimensioning
seen in Fig. 18, there are minor
changes to the lesser thicknesses
of S(fr) due to increased
conservatism over the years, and
perhaps due to some sub-
standard thicknesses which
could have prejudiced curing

123
52 Page 12 of 24
Fig. 18 The updated Q-support chart first published by [16]. The
details of RRS dimensioning given in the ‘boxes’ in the left-hand side
of the Q-support diagram were derived by a combination of
empiricism and some specific numerical modeling by a small team
of former NGI colleagues. Note RRS dimensioning example ‘box’ at
the bottom of this figure. Note from [11] that bolt length (right side of
quality side of the Q-support chart of 1993, in Fig. 17. Note
the ‘RRS ? B’ and the recommended range of S(fr)
(general) thickness varying from 15 to 25 cm when there
are low Q value conditions. Locally, as seen in Figs. 14 and
15, the RRS has greater thickness in each arch. The
requirements, which are tunnel-size dependent, are shown
later, in a recently updated Q-support chart from Grimstad,
reproduced with many other Q-system details, in Barton
and Grimstad [9].
Note that today’s minimum S(fr) thickness has been
recommended as 5 cm thickness. Small adjustments in the
most updated chart, developed by Grimstad, are given in
123
Innov. Infrastruct. Solut. (2017) 2:52
figure) is estimated from: L = 2 ? 0.15 SPAN/ESR (m). For walls
L = 2 ? 0.15 HEIGHT/ESR (m). For large caverns with eventual
cable anchors, the factor (2 ? 0.15x) is replaced by 0.4x and 0.35x,
respectively, for the length of anchors in the arch and walls. Note that
HEIGHT refers to the full excavation height. See updated ESR values
(Table 1), which follows on the next page
Barton and Grimstad [9], and are shown in Fig. 18. For
instance, with a span = 12 m, and Q = 4 (‘fair’), the
above Q-support chart from 1993 recommends best quality
S(fr) of 5 cm thickness and B (CT-type) c/c 2.1 m. An
extra 1 cm of S(fr) (total 6 cm) is suggested in the most
updated chart (Fig. 18), but unchanged bolt spacing of
2.1 m c/c. Note that the ESR (excavation support ratio)
safety number (see Span/ESR = equivalent dimension, left
side of figure) is given in Table 1 and illustrated in Fig. 19.
Figure 20 shows a completed NMT-style rail tunnel
from neighbouring Sweden. The moderate to very good
lighting available when this tunnel was photographed
Innov. Infrastruct. Solut. (2017) 2:52 Page 13 of 24 52

Table 1 In the central column, ESR (1994) values in use in the nineties [9] are tabulated
Type of excavation ESR ESR (2014)
(1994)

A Temporary mine openings, etc. ca. 2–5 ca. 2–5

B Permanent mine openings, water tunnels for hydropower (exclude high-pressure penstocks), pilot tunnels, 1.6–2.0 1.6–2.0
drifts and headings for large openings, surge chambers
C Storage caverns, water treatment plants, minor road and railway tunnels, access tunnels 1.2–1.3 0.9–1.1
Storage caverns
1.2–1.3
D Power stations, major road and railway tunnels, civil defence chambers, portals, intersections 0.9–1.1 Major road and rail
tunnels 0.5–0.8
E Underground nuclear power stations, railway stations, sports and public facilities, factories, major gas 0.5–0.8 0.5–0.8
pipeline tunnels
Some updates recommended today due to the demand for greater safety are shown on the right (2014). Note the use of italics to emphasize no
change from 1994 to 2014

Fig. 19 The workings of ESR, for modifying SPAN to equivalent
span. The way ESR modifies the equivalent span is shown by the
sloping lines, assuming ESR = 1.6 marks the unsupported boundary
(for hydropower) [2]. Note that ‘unsupported span’ in the Q-system
refers to the width of excavation. In Bieniawski [15] concerning use
of RMR, the ‘unsupported span’ is the longitudinal distance from the
face to the nearest support or reinforcement. These two ‘spans’ are
sometimes confused, due to interest in using the ‘stand-up time’
chart developed by Bieniawski [15]

allows one to see the ‘minimalist-but-sufficient’ S(fr) use in
NMT-style support (the Q-system was used on this project
for dimensioning), compared to the 75–100 cm that may
typically be the total shotcrete and concrete thickness in a
full-blown NATM tunnel. Thousands of case records
document the sufficiency of the Q-based support.
Numerical modeling with joint sets represented (in
UDEC-BB: BB are the non-linear constitutive laws for the
joints), and structural elements to represent the thin and
strongly ‘undulating’ shotcrete surface (as illustrated in the
above photos) indicate that bolt forces (where they cross
and reinforce the jointing) are significantly reduced by the
addition of the shotcrete from the start of modeling. The
roughness and intimate filling of the overbreak by the S(fr)
is the reason for great effectiveness, even if bonding is
artificially deleted. Traditionalists would no doubt miss the
‘complete ring of concrete’ and their well-practiced ability
to use thick-walled cylinder formulae.
In the case of the NMT-style tunnels illustrated, the
initial support and reinforcement is finalized while pro-
gressing in the tunnel. There is no unsafe, temporary sup-
port phase, waiting many months or even 1 or 2 years for a
final (and finally safe) concrete lining, as in NATM. Risk is
high in this phase of NATM. Risk is not high when prac-
ticing NMT, if Q-dimensioned support and reinforcement
(and good quality products) are used. In this connection,
note that Dramix cold-drawn steel fibre, the typical
0.5 9 35 mm variety, is stiff enough ‘to draw blood’ (lit-
erally) if scratched across the back of your hand. A ‘plas-
tic’ bending variety seen in some cut-price tunnelling,
though cheaper to purchase, may make the tunnel much,
much more expensive in the long run. Do not cut corners

123
52 Page 14 of 24 Innov. Infrastruct. Solut. (2017) 2:52

Fig. 20 Left an NMT main road tunnel in preparation in Norway. The
rock mass is highly jointed, causing marked overbreak in this
location, but the arch is well-stabilized by the CT-bolts @ 1 m c/c
(approximately) and by the rough undulating 5–10 cm of S(fr),
perhaps not yet completed on walls with scaled blocks still shown. A
final free-standing PC-element liner with outer membrane will be a
common way to complete this twin-tube road tunnel. Right a railway
tunnel in Sweden (Botniabanan) where there is also strong overbreak
due also to Jn/Jr [ 6. Q-system designed B ? S(fr) for permanent
support. Note permanent installations, prior to track-laying. Neither
tunnel has been high-pressure pre-injected, hence the marked
overbreak in both

when seeing a high unit price. The tunnel will be cheaper if

the high unit price is appreciated—for its better quality and
hence tunnel performance enhancing properties. This
applies especially to fibres, micro-silica, and corrosion-
protected (e.g. CT) bolts. If polypropylene fibres are cho-
sen, make sure rough (‘miniature-rope-like’) fibres are
used: they will bond properly, unlike cheaper and smooth
floor-slab fibres seen in some cut-price tunnelling.

Water-proofing methods in NMT

Although the huge cumulative lengths of hydropower

tunnels worldwide (with 3500 km in Norway alone)
mostly do not have strong water-proofing demands, as
often driven in mountainous regions with limited popu-
lation and environmental demands, there are numerous
tunnels (road, rail, metro, water transfer and also
Fig. 21 A typical drained-but-dry NMT tunnel with permanent
hydropower in populated regions) where inflow criteria support provided by the Q-system designed B ? S(fr). In this case,
are strict, or should have been stricter. This is because of the (road) tunnel has a permanent PC-element and outer membrane
passing under nearby housing, villages, towns, and of drip-shield. Modified from Kveldsvik and Karlsrud [19]
course sub-city metro locations, with over-lying com-
On the environmentally sensitive subject of tunnels
pressible clays or other sensitive soils. There are also
where pre-injection was needed but ineffectively per-
green areas, woods, and lakes for recreation, where
formed (for instance, due to insufficient drilling positions
inflow criteria may need to be strict, even as stringent as
on a TBM), the writer knows of a hydropower project
1–4 l/min/100 m of tunnel. When such criteria are not
where [2000 houses have been damaged and wells drawn
met, there may be permanent groundwater drawdown,
down, even as far as 1–3 km distant from a several hundred
settlement damage to buildings, and even drained lakes
metres deep tunnel. A jointed rock mass will often be
and damaged woods and forests.
highly anisotropic, especially as regards permeability [10],

123
Innov. Infrastruct. Solut. (2017) 2:52 Page 15 of 24 52

Fig. 22 Mounting of 9 tons arch and wall PC-element ‘drip-shields’ injection were not sufficiently successful. Note that the 15 cm
with outer membrane visible in left-hand photo (white sheeting). thickness of the PC-elements added to the Q-system stability needs of
These elements were needed due to insufficient pre-injection, which S(fr), of 10 cm, makes a total 25 cm of concrete thickness
was rushed due to pressing deadlines. Extensive efforts with post-

so the effect of inflow to a tunnel on the surroundings is

extremely difficult to predict, and most isotropic perme-
ability assumptions will need to be revised, sometimes
drastically. However, we can start with tunnels where
drainage is allowable, and show the contrasting NMT and
NATM solutions.

Dry but drained

Figure 21 illustrates a dry-but-drained single-shell NMT

tunnel, where the free-standing bolted PC-elements act as a
permanent drip shield. Insulation against frost for the early
chainage from each portal is also shown. In this case, there
are no environmental concerns outside the tunnel. If there
were, pre-injection would have been used as the first
activity when driving the tunnel. Pre-injection will be
described later. Of course it is extremely important, espe-
cially if it has been carried out ineffectively, due to limited
understanding of the need for using micro-cements and
micro-silica and high pre-injection pressures. Figure 22
illustrates the fixing of bolted PC-elements in a large[1002
m double-track high-speed rail tunnel. These can be
mounted at a rate of 900–1000 m per month when using
efficient vacuum erectors.

Pre-injected and almost dry

This sub-title is so named ‘almost dry’ to make allow-
ance for the fact that some pre-injection designs are not
sufficiently stringent. For instance, prioritizing the outer
Fig. 23 Top a Norwegian contractor drawing (original source
unknown) of the pre-injection umbrella principle. Bottom pre-
injection of an NMT tunnel, with up to 70 holes in a high-speed
110 m2 (electric) twin-track rail tunnel, driven in shales, limestones
and numerous volcanic dykes. Pressures from 5 to 10 MPa [6, 7]

123
52 Page 16 of 24
Fig. 24 Top a pre-injected single-shell NMT-style metro tunnel in
Switzerland. Damp patches in the shotcrete have been treated with a
sprayed membrane in a sandwich, using BASF 345 technology, as
described by Holter and Nymoen, [18]. Note the use (in this case) of
polypropylene fibres. The membrane is formed from powder and
environment, with an ‘allowable’ 8–12 l/min/100 m
limits on inflow to (nearly) protect green areas, may
allow damaging dripping in the tunnel instead of prior-
itizing the inner environment of the (electrified) rail
tunnel with the more stringent 1–4 l/min/100 m. It is the
latter which is needed for achieving a virtually dry
tunnel. For a shallow (&50 m deep tunnel), this may be
equivalent in achieving a near-tunnel permeability of
better than 10-8 m/s (roughly equivalent to 0.1 Lugeons)
and approaching 10-9 m/s (roughly equivalent to 0.01
Lugeons (Figs. 23, 24).
123
Innov. Infrastruct. Solut. (2017) 2:52
water, and can be sprayed with the same robotic equipment as the
S(fr). The plate-loading test results indicate that the presence of the
membrane is positive for two reasons: improved S(fr) toughness
(greater fracture energy or area under the curve), and the expected
water proofing
Relative Q values for cost, overall time and cycle
time
Because of the frequent use of the Q-system for mapping
and documentation of tunnelling conditions, studies have
been made of the relative cost and time involved in NMT
single-shell tunnelling. A study involving some 50 km of
Norwegian (mostly) and Swedish tunnels, using contractor
data, was reported by Roald and presented in a joint pub-
lication [14]. Figure 25 shows why NMT is as cheap and
fast as it is, in relation to NATM. This is because the Q-
Innov. Infrastruct. Solut. (2017) 2:52 Page 17 of 24 52

Fig. 25 Relative time (left) and cost (right) of tunnel construction in relation to the Q value, according to a 50-km survey of tunnels carried out
by Roald, and published as Barton et al. [14]. NATM methods partially ignore the real needs

Fig. 26 The results of relative cost in relation to Q, in an independent
application of Q-based support and reinforcement, including the
mostly much reduced wall treatment. Spans of 7, 12 and 15 m
tunnels, or cross-sections 50, 90 and 130 m2 excavations are shown,
in relation to motorway ramps and main tunnel tubes. The relative
frequencies (in metres) of specific Q value ranges, based on logging
of frequent borehole cores, give the possibility of direct costing. Note
that with pre-injection, the argument is made that many Q-parameters
are improved. If this is accepted, then the low-Q ‘tail’ of the Q value
distribution can be expected to partially ‘move-to-the-right’, therefore
partially removing the higher costs

system recommendations for B ? S(fr) ? RRS are used in
the one case, and of course not used and with rather dif-
ferent consequences in NATM (refer to Fig. 1a, b). NATM
is ‘well up these curves’ because the ‘heavy double-shell
support’ is used also when Q [ 1. This is wasteful.
It should be clear from the above relative cost and relative
time exercises that NMT is a far more sustainable and
scientifically based method that NATM. The latter passes
through a very questionable and potentially unsafe tempo-
rary support phase with deformation poorly controlled.
Indeed, the monitoring of deformation with NATM is an
important and integral part of the method. When deformation
time histories have slowed sufficiently, it is judged to be time
to have the final concrete lining installed. In fact, the design

123
52 Page 18 of 24
Fig. 27 Cycle time (drilling blast holes, loading with explosives,
blasting, waiting for gasses to clear, scaling, geological inspection,
mucking, reinforcement and support) as observed by Grimstad in the
Fodnes road tunnel, which has a cross-section of 50–55 m2. For
comparison, the cycle time for labour intensive temporary support
methods in a hydroelectric project in India is also shown in relation to
the logged Q values. A final concrete lining will add to the differences
in time and cost of NATM compared to NMT
Fig. 28 The ‘design-and-execute’ tunneller’s desk of drawers, used by Barton [3] to summarise key elements of NMT for an international
readership. Table 2 gives a summary of the ‘content’ of each drawer, using added connecting text
123
Innov. Infrastruct. Solut. (2017) 2:52
of the concrete liner is supposed to not take credit for the
temporary support of S(mr) ? B ? lattice girders because it
is assumed that these will eventually degrade, since they
were not specifically designed to last. This is a waste of
resources, and combined with the three to four times greater
thickness of concrete (than NMT); the process seems to be
overdue for serious review (Figs. 26, 27).
If large caverns can be permanently supported and
reinforced with good quality and corrosion protected
B ? S(fr), even in Austria as illustrated in Fig. 11, then
why not tunnels that is a small fraction of the cross-sec-
tion? For instance most of the world’s large caverns of
600–1000 m2 cross-section utilize B ? S(fr) in an NMT-
style single-shell format. Why should tunnels of
100–150 m2 need to be so expensive in relation to the
caverns? Is the planned use—which is of course so dif-
ferent—sufficient cause. The world’s many hundreds of
hydropower caverns, some 3 9 800 in number, have 800
machine halls with personell present and a lot of very
expensive machinery.(The 800 transformer halls are also
extremely important caverns, likewise the surge chambers,
Innov. Infrastruct. Solut. (2017) 2:52
Table 2 An expanded text to explain the NMT abbreviations in the ‘drawers’ in Fig. 28
Rock mass characterization using the six Q-parameters. A relationship
between Q and VP and deformation modulus M is indicated, using Qc,
rc, matrix porosity n% and depth H (m) or stress level
Support design measures consist of none, sb, B, B ? S, B ? S(fr),
RRS, CCA. (Untensioned grouted Butg bolts, tensioned resin end-
anchored bolts, and CT bolts). Also may use spiling, drainage, pre-
injection, and freezing
S(fr) robot technology using Portland cement, silica fume, plasticizer,
superplasticizer, aggregate and non-alkali (low) accelerator. Steel
fibre: EE 20–25 mm (previously), Bekaert 30–35 mm/0.5 mm.
(Today: also PP fibre Barchip 48 mm, 0.4/1.4 mm)
Rapid advance due to wet process S(fr) shotcrete, gives low rebound
and improved environment
Many of the features mentioned were used in the Gjøvik cavern
each for very different reasons.) NMT is a scientific and
well-documented method, as demonstrated in Fig. 28, with
the ‘designer’s desk’ (from [3]) (Fig. 29).
Failures during temporary support phase: NATM
lessons
With overbreak never drawn and never numerically
modeled, the designers of NATM tunnels are free to
imagine that they have a final concrete lining that is
perhaps even in overall compression, with little problem
of bending stresses such as in the nice example shown in
Fig. 30. The overall volume of shotcrete, first for the
initial lining, second for the final lining, can appear to be
a slim 50 or 60 cm in total. The reality is seldom as
illustrated. First in the soil section, where loading might
have approached that provided by an isotropic contin-
uum, there will be unwanted overbreak, fall-of-sand,
etc., between each lattice girder, before getting control.
In the (eventual) saprolite and deeply weathered rock in
the next tens of metres of tunnel (assuming entry into a
hill), there will be the probability of larger individual
occurrences of overbreak. A measured statistic on the
thickness of the lattice girder-covering and overbreak-
filling temporary support shotcrete is shown in Fig. 31.
When the tunnel reaches rock, if the same lattice girder
and shotcrete, and no rock bolts method are continued,
there will be the probability of some individual deeper
sections of overbreak, if the Q-parameter ratio Jn/Jr (joint
sets/joint roughness) is C6. The result can be anisotropic
Page 19 of 24 52
Site investigation using seismic refraction, radar, cross-hole VP or Edyn
tomogram, or attenuation tomogram. (Note Qseismic = 1/attenuation
is numerically close to modulus M in GPa)
Numerical verification of support designs using codes such as UDEC,
UDEC-BB, UDEC-Sfr, less frequently FLAC, FLAC-3D and 3DEC.
Relevant parameters JRC, JCS, ur, Kn and Ks, Emass. Traditional
c ? u, etc., for continua
Norwegian tunnel contract system uses a flexible contract, with unit
prices for all possible measures in tender documents: use the motto
‘expect the unexpected’. Norwegian owners burden the risk, and
tunnels are cheaper
Low cost and less conflicts, permanent single-shell support compared
to double-shell NATM
and ‘point’ loading effects, which are poorly resisted by
unbolted lattice girders. This is because the designers
usually have made no allowance for non-uniform loading
in their continuum modeling. It is much easier to ignore the
possibility. An example of uniform isotropic optimism is
shown in Fig. 32.
The unfortunate reality, easier to explain after the event
than before, was that the vertically jointed phyllite that was
encountered after the soil and saprolite, should have been
specifically modeled, because it caused anisotropic loading
quite unlike the isotropic conditions that had been assumed
by the designers (Fig. 33).
In addition, there was a challenging ‘triggering
event’—a deeply weathered dike—eventually intersect-
ing the tunnel at an acute angle, and causing a pre-
liminary fall of ground. Figure 34 shows a ‘failure-in-
progress’ UDEC model with the sub-vertical structure
of the phyllite modeled for the first time. The lattice
girders’ resistance is overcome and plastic hinges are
then modeled. A complementary 3DEC model, also
performed by Dr. Bandis, indicated that retrogressive
failure all the way back to the portal would occur, with
the boltless rock and the unbolted lattice girders over-
come by a progressive failure. Figure 35 illustrates the
dramatic result of 140 m of failed tunnel in the centre
of the helicopter photo. Just glimpsed to the left is the
parallel tube which failed, all 140 m of it, some months
later. The second top heading that failed, showing signs
of shearing across the lattice girders, some 100 m into
the tunnel, completely failed some months later, making
a total of 280 m of collapsed tunnelling. The severely
123
52 Page 20 of 24 Innov. Infrastruct. Solut. (2017) 2:52

Fig. 29 The largest span NMT project, the 62 m span Gjøvik Olympic cavern in Norway. Note moderate quality of the jointed gneiss and the
local overbreak of [1 m. No lattice girders, no concrete, so no problem. Drip-shield, drained but dry [13]

123
Innov. Infrastruct. Solut. (2017) 2:52
Fig. 30 An ideal looking double-shell NATM tunnel design, with
initial lining, water-proofing lining (usually with drainage fleece) and
final lining. The nice uniform thickness all-in-compression liner is
Fig. 31 An undesirable statistic concerning the temporary lining
shotcrete thickness in a large 20 m span NATM tunnel. The shotcrete
was used to fill overbreak and to cover the lattice girders. The
designed minimum thickness was 30 cm. A great majority of the data
(from the first 140 m of tunnel) lies in the region of 40–60 cm
thickness, with too many cases[60 cm. One may assume 75–100 cm
total thickness of concrete (sprayed or cast) when adding another
35–40 cm
challenged and initially neat-looking portal area, and a
major tension crack in the terrain, with rotation of over-
lying ground, is illustrated in Figs. 35 and 36.
Page 21 of 24 52
rather different from the reality. For instance, note the initial lining
thickness statistic from the first 140 m of a tunnel in Fig. 31
The writer has earlier argued that despite the fact that
lattice girders (and steel sets) are fabricated with the
hardest of materials, the overall response is ‘soft’ because:
1. It is difficult to make continuous contact between the
tunnel (or cavern) perimeter and the lattice girder when
there is Jn/Jr C6 causing the overbreak.
2. Rock mass deformation is needed to make ‘solid’ but
only local contact with the steel. However, the steel
structure is not yet stiff, so deformation continues.
3. Rock mass strength may be reduced in the wrong
places as a result of any significant (several mm?)
deformation.
4. When this loading starts to be applied by the less
stable parts of the excavation perimeter, the footings of
the lattice girder will inevitably deform then stiffen.
5. Strain and resulting stress must build up in the steel
bars of the lattice girder for it to finally apply
resistance to further deformation of the tunnel
perimeter.
It is reasonable to expect that wedges of unstable rock,
with low-roughness (low Jr) joint boundaries, will behave
adversely as the tunnel is advanced, if without bolting, due
to meeting only ‘soft’ resistance from the optimistically
located lattice girders (Figs. 37, 38).
123
52 Page 22 of 24 Innov. Infrastruct. Solut. (2017) 2:52

Fig. 32 The assumption that causes least work and gives perfect- optimistic modeling was one of the major causes of a dramatic double
looking symmetry, is to ignore any anisotropic loading, and to ignore collapse in the temporary support phase of a major NATM motorway
any peculiarities of the (possibly sloping) terrain. This colourful, tunnel project illustrated on the next pages as a lesson

Fig. 34 A jointed UDEC-MC (Mohr–Coulomb shear strength)

model, with sub-vertical jointing and a weathered dyke each
challenging the capacity of inadequately designed and inadequately
dimensioned lattice girders. (Dr. Bandis)
Fig. 33 Top an elasto-plastic isotropic UDEC continuum model,
showing displacements, which are largest in the first (right-hand)
tunnel model. Magnitudes are in the range of 40–60 mm which is
cause for concern. Bottom when the actual initial presence of the
strongly sloping ground surface was included, as of course it should
have been by the designers, quite different and adverse behaviour was
indicated. (Modeling by Dr. Stavros Bandis, on behalf of the author)

123
Innov. Infrastruct. Solut. (2017) 2:52
Fig. 35 Fortunately the tunnel crews had a lunch break when the
total collapse of 140 m of NATM temporary top-heading support
occurred, due to over-loading and retrogressive failure back to the
portal. The latter was initially excavated in the deep soil and saprolite
and showed significant early deformation. Note slope
Fig. 36 Failure of the second tube, also excavated some 140 m,
followed some months later, making a total of 280 m of collapsed
tunnel. We can conclude that the main cause was to assume uniform
loading of the temporary lattice girders, when in reality there was an
anisotropic weak (phyllitic) rock mass and a neglected dike ready to
challenge the traditional temporary support, once leaving the soil and
saprolite near the portal
Conclusions
1. NATM and NMT tunnels are based on radically dif-
ferent use of resources, particularly regarding concrete
(or shotcrete) thickness, and weight of steel. Cost and
time differences may be 4:1 and 2 years added con-
struction time.
2. In the case of NMT tunnels, the initial support and
reinforcement is finalized while progressing the tunnel,
with a much smaller (1:10?) labour force and more
mechanization, especially the high-capacity S(fr)
robots.
Page 23 of 24 52
Fig. 37 The collapse of the second tube caused rotation of the road
and trees, and telegraph pole, and wide but subsequently soil-filled
tension crack formation
Fig. 38 Although this metro station cavern failed for very special
reasons (a hidden 10–11 m high ridge of rock preserved in the soil
due to differential weathering, which fell 10 m to the cavern floor), it
is a sober lesson to see robust 25 9 25 9 32 mm bars constituting
the (unbolted) lattice girders bent or broken in tension. Most of what
we see in Fig. 2a collapsed due to the irresistible loading
3. With NMT there is no unsafe, temporary support phase
relying on deformable, unbolted lattice girders, waiting
many months or even 1 or 2 years for a final (and
finally safe) concrete lining, as in NATM. Risk is high
in this phase.
References
1. Austrian Society for Geomechanics (2010) NATM: the Austrian
practice of conventional tunnelling
2. Barton N (1976) Unsupported underground openings. Rock
Mechanics Discussion Meeting, Befo, Swedish Rock Mechanics
Research Foundation, Stockholm, pp 61–94
3. Barton N (1996) Investigation, design and support of major road
tunnels in jointed rock using NMT principles. Keynote Lecture,
IX Australian Tunnelling Conf. Sydney, pp 145–159
123
52 Page 24 of 24
4. Barton N (2002) Some new Q-value correlations to assist in site
characterization and tunnel design. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci
39(2):185–216
5. Barton N (2007) Future directions for rock mass classification
and characterization—towards a cross-disciplinary approach.
Invited lecture. In: Proc. of 1st US-Canada Rock Mech. Symp.,
Vancouve
6. Barton N (2012a) Defining NMT as part of the NATM SCL
debate. In: Wallace S (ed) TunnelTalk, p 4
7. Barton N (2012b) Assessing pre-injection in tunnelling. Tunn J,
pp 44–50
8. Barton N, Grimstad E (1994a) The Q-system following twenty
years of application in NMT support selection. 43rd Geome-
chanic Colloquy, Salzburg. Felsbau, 6/94:428–436
9. Barton N, Grimstad E (1994b) Rock mass conditions dictate
choice between NMT and NATM. Tunn Tunn 29(10):39–42
10. Barton N, Quadros E (2015) Anisotropy is everywhere, to see, to
measure and to model. Rock Mech Rock Eng 48:1323–1339
11. Barton N, Lien R, Lunde J (1974) Engineering classification of
rock masses for the design of tunnel support. Rock Mech
6(4):189–236
12. Barton N, Grimstad E, Aas G, Opsahl OA, Bakken A, Pedersen
L, Johansen ED (1992) Norwegian method of tunnelling. WT
Focus on Norway, World Tunnelling, June/August 1992
13. Barton N, By TL, Chryssanthakis P, Tunbridge L, Kristiansen J,
Løset F, Bhasin RK, Westerdahl H, Vik G (1994) Predicted and
123
Innov. Infrastruct. Solut. (2017) 2:52
measured performance of the 62 m span Norwegian Olympic Ice
Hockey Cavern at Gjøvik. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech
Abstr 31(6):617–641
14. Barton N, Buen B, Roald S (2001) Strengthening the case for
grouting. Tunn Tunn Int Dec 2001:34–36/Jan 2002:37–39
15. Bieniawski ZT (1989) Engineering rock mass classifications: a
complete manual for engineers and geologists in mining, civil and
petroleum engineering. Wiley, New York
16. Grimstad E (2007) The Norwegian method of tunnelling—a
challenge for support design. XIV European conference on soil
mechanics and geotechnical engineering. Madrid
17. Grimstad E, Barton N (1993) Updating of the Q-System for
NMT. In: Kompen, Opsahl, Berg (eds) Proc. of Int. Symp. on
sprayed concrete—modern use of wet mix sprayed concrete for
underground support, Fagernes, 1993. Norwegian Concrete
Association, Oslo, pp 46–66
18. Holter KG, Nymoen B (2009) Permanent waterproof tunnel lin-
ing based on sprayed concrete and spray-applied double-bonded
membrane. In: Proc. of ITA Congress, Helsinki
19. Kveldsvik V, Karlsrud K (1995) Support and water control in
Oslo. World Tunn 8:167–171
20. Vandevall M (1990) Dramix—tunnelling the world, 1991 edition.
NV Bækert S.A, Belgium
21. Ward WH, Todd P, Berry NSM (1983) The Kielder experimental
tunnel: final results. Geotechnique 33(3):275–291