E xp l or e

150 5 Support
Fig. 5.28.

Axial thrust within the lining at uniform

radial pressure (left) andbending with nonuniform pressure (right)

related increase of loads. This supporting action is called sealing and

can beobtained with thin layers of shotcrete. A recent development

is to seal with3-6 mm thick sprayon polymer liners. They have good adhesive

bond, whenapplied to clean rock, and develop a good performance

in tension and shear. Itshould be mentioned, though, that creep is still an open

question. In contrastto shotcrete, the compliant nature of synthetic

liners allows them to continueto function over a wide displacemen t range.

5.10 Recomme ndations for support

Originally, the support measures were determined in an empirical

way, following a sort of trial and error procedure, which is often (but

falsely) attributedas observation al method. Later on, empirical rules have

been based uponrock classication schemes. In contrast, rational analysis

seeks to design thesupport on the basis of the interplay between

ground and the several supportelem ents.The rational approach, based on

computation s, is increasingly applied. How-ever, there are still

important gaps in knowledge. To give an example, themechanic al behaviour

of green shotcrete is poorly known (see Section 22.3)and also the

loads exerted by the ground upon the lining cannot be exactlydeter

mined. Therefore, computation s are often biased and recommenda tionsbased

on rock mass rating are welcome to somehow ll the gap.Clearly, the required

support depends not only on the quality of the groundbut also on the

size and depth of the cavity and on the allowed deformation s.When

combining two or more types of support (e.g. shotcrete and rockbolts),at

tention should be paid to the fact that they may have di erent compliances,

i.e. their resistance is mobilised at di erent deformation s.

D. D. Tannant, Development of thin sprayon liners for underground rock sup-port an

alternative to shotcrete? In: Spritzbeton Technologie 2002, published byW. Kusterle,

University of Innsbruck, Institut fur Betonbau, Bausto e und Bau-physik, 141-153.

5.10 Recommenda tions for support 151

Support recommenda tions based on RMR:

recommends the support measures

shown in table 5.2. They arebased on RMR

(see Section 3.6.1) and

refer to a tunnel of 10 m diameter.

20 mm, fullybondedS hotcrete R i b s 81-100 full face, advance3 m 61-80 full face,

advance1-1.5 m, completesupp ort 20 m fromfacelocall y bolts incrown, 3 m long,spaced

2.5 m,with occasionalwir e mesh5 cm in crownwhere required4160 top heading

andbench: 1.5-3 madvance in topheading, commencesup port after eachblast, completesupp

ort 10 m fromfacesyste matic bolts4 m long, spaced1.5-2 m in crownand walls

withwire mesh incrown5-10 cm incrown, 3 cm insides 21-40 top heading andbench: 1-

1.5 madvance in topheading, installsupport concurrentlyw ith excavation

10 m from facesystematic

bolts4-5 m long,spaced 1-1.5 min crown andwalls with wiremesh1015 cm incrown and

10 cmin sideslight ribs spaced1.5 m whererequired

20 multiple drifts:0.5-1.5 m advance

intop heading, installsupport concurrentlyw ith excavationsyst ematic bolts56m long,spaced

1-1.5 min crown andwalls with wiremesh. Boltinvert.1520 cm incrown, 15 cm insides

and 5 cmin facemedium toheavy ribsspaced 0.75 mwith steellagging andforepoling

if required. Closeinvert
Table 5.2.

Support measures based on RMR (according to

)
21

Bieniawski, Z.T., Rock Mechanics Design in Mining and Tunnelling. Balkema,1984

152 5 Support

Support recommenda tions based on Q-values: Depending on the rock

quality and on the size of the cavity (expressed byits span s

or height) the recommende d support is indicated in a Q

s diagram(Fig. 5.29).
Exceptionally poor Extremely poor Very poor P o o r Fair

G o o d Very good Ext. good Exc. good 100 50 20 10 5 2 1 100 5 0 20 10 5 2 1 . 0 0 1 . 0 1 . 1 1 4 1 0 4 0 1 0 0 4 0 0 1 0 0 0

CA S T C O N C R E T E L INING CA S T C O N C R E T E LINING OR BOLT SAND FIBERCRET E

BO LTSA N D FI B E RC R ET E
BO L TSA N D S HO TC R E T E

S Y S T E MA T IC BO L T I NG

S POT BO LTI NG BO LT S P ACI NG ( m) N O ROCK S U P PO RT R EQ UI R E D 0. 5 1m 1m 11. 5 m 1. 5 - 3 m

Rock mass quality Q = RQD Jn ( ) Jr Ja ( ) Jw SRF ( ) x x

Equivalentdimension= SPAN.DIAMETER orHEIGHT(m) ESR

Fig. 5.29.

Recommende d types of support

. ESR is the so-called excavation sup-port ratio. Its values range between 0.5 and 5 and are

given in a table of the citedpaper for various types of excavations.

5.11 Temporar y and permanent linings

In su ciently strong rock (as often encountered e.g. in Scandinavia

) permanent lining is not provided for.

Usually, however,

conventional ly driventunnel s obtain a permanent lining (inner lining) of

cast concrete in additionto the temporary lining of shotcrete (outer

lining). The prevailing idea is thatthe loads exerted on the shotcrete lining are

initially reduced due to archingbut then slowly increase. It is also

believed that the shotcrete lining decayswith time so that an inner

lining of cast concrete becomes necessary. Theseideas have never

been conrmed. Of course, there is no doubt that the in-ner lining

increases safety. There are also some other benets from the inner
23

Barton, N., Grimstad, E.: The Q-System following 20 years of application,

12, No. 6 (1994), 428436

E.g. the Gjvik Olympic Cavern Hall in Norway

with 91 m span, 24 m heightand a capacity of 5,800 persons

5.12 Permanent lining 153

lining: A sealing membrane (if necessary)

can be mounted between the outerand inner linings. In addition, a

smooth surface of the tunnel wall (as is thecase with a cast concrete

lining) is advantageou s from the points of view of aerodyna mics

(ventilation) and illumination. In the case of segmental linings (as

used in shield driven tunnels) there isusually no inner lining

of cast concrete. Such linings are watertight up towater

pressures of 6 bar.

5.12 Permanent lining

a permanent lining is at least 25 cm. For reinforced andwatertigh t linings a

minimum thickness of 35 cm is recommende d

. Blocksof 8 to 12 m in

length are separated with extension joints. Usually concreteC20

/25 is used. Concretes of higher strengths develop higher temperature

sduring setting (ssures!) and are more brittle.

Rolling formwork

(Engelberg base tunnel)

The concrete is poured into rolling formworks (Fig. 5.30,

5.31) and compactedw ith vibrators in the invert and with external vibrators in

the crown (one

Concrete Linings for Mined Tunnels, Recommendat

ions by DAUB, Dec. 2000,

, 3/2001, 2743
26

Tunnel

, 3/2001, p. 30
27

Tunnel

, 3/2001, p. 31

154 5 Support
Fig. 5.31.

Rolling formwork (Nebenwegtun nel,

Vaihingen/En z)
27

vibrator for 3 to 4 m
2

). It is di cult to achieve

complete lling of the crownspace with concrete: The pumping

pressure should be limited, otherwise therolling formwork can be

destroyed. Possibly unlled parts should be regroutedwit h pressures of

 2 bar 56 days after concreting. Usage of self-

compactingc oncrete
28

can possibly help to avoid incomplete lling of the formwork.W

ithin 8 hours the concrete should attain a su cient strength, so that

theformwork can be removed. However, there are cases reported

where the settingwas insu cient and the lining collapsed after early

removal of the formwork. 5.12.1 Reinforceme nt of the

permanent lining Since the loads acting upon the inner lining are not

exactly known, the re-quirement for its reinforceme nt is an open question.

In France and Austria,for instance, inner linings are usually not

reinforced. The German Rail, onthe other hand, decided to reinforce the inner

linings, based on its experi-ences from the new HannoverWurzburg

line. One should also consider thehindranc e to tra c due to repair works of

defective linings. Apart from the

This is a concrete of high

owability (spread
>

70cm)
29

One of the greatest gures in

contemporary tunnelling,
Leopold MullerSalzburg

writes: Experience teaches that our inability to design

tunnels realisti-cally leads to considerable overdesign and fearreinforcement , without any

addi-tional safety despite substantial additional costs.

Recommended

37 p . T unn elli ng bo t s _ h ead s ho t 270 R e a ds

443 p . T unn elli n g and T unn elM e c ha ni cs fi ck e s 1 307 2629 R e a ds

359 p . H ar dr oc k T unn elB ori ng M a c hi n es W il ey 5165 R e a ds $125 0 .0

60 p . T unn elT e c hno l ogy ak m e ez 6041 R e a ds

More From This User

1p. A b oH ajj a j 138 R e a ds

2p. 5 go l de nr u l est o fi n d you rlif e p a rt ner A b oH ajj a j 304 R e a ds

4p. i t n er ac ti n g w it hw m o e n can i m pai rm e n s cogn iti veu f n c ti on i ng A b oH ajj a j 8166 R e a ds

338 p . A b oH ajj a j 4457 R e a ds

Featured

54 p . K or ea M a g az i ne R e pub li c o fK or ea

13 p . N o nPr o fitB estP r ac ti ce s K e nY e ung

19 p . C m o pa ni e s W eT hi nk We L ove B e ac on P r e ss

115 p . Fut ur eDi g it a lB o ok P ub l sh i i ng W M e F di a ,I nc. $5 . 99 C o mm e nt s

About

A b ou tS cri bd Bl og J o i n ou rt ea m ! C o nt ac tU s

Premium

Pe r m m u R e i a der S cri bd S t or e

Advertise with us

G ets t a rt ed A d C h oi ce s

Support

H el p F AQ Pr e ss

Partners

D e v el op e r s / A PI

Legal

T er ms P ri v acy C o py ri gh t

C opy ri gh t2013 S cri bd I n c. L a ngu a ge: E ng li s h