IE sport No.

FHWA/RD-80/014
662
.A3
no.
FHWA-
RD-
80-014
(EPRESENTATIVE GROUND PARAMETERS

FOR STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS OF TUNNELS

Vol. III. Tunnel Design and Construction

June 1981

Final Report

EXAMPLE OF FIELD MEASUREMENTS

DEEP TUNNEL

REFERENCE POINT
(STABLE?)
PIEZOMETER
APARTMENT OF J

^NSPORTATfON
LEGEND:
FREE WATER SURFACE
PRESSURE GAUGE
IY 1 1 too*
TUNNEL 7| =^_EXTENSOMETER
• INCLINOMETER PIEZOMETER
VERTICAL EXTENSOMETERS
mmii (MULTIPOINT ANCHORAGE! LIBRAft v
AND INCLINOMETERS

Document is available to the public through

the National Technical Information Service,
Springfield, Virginia 22161

Prepared for

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

s tates °v
Offices of Research & Development
Structures and Applied Mechanics Division

Washington, D.C. 20590

 FOREWORD

This report contains the results of a research effort conducted by the

Federal Highway Administration, through Del on Hampton and Associates,
Chartered, to make an in-depth evaluation of site investigation techniques
that are applicable to the design and construction of tunnels.

This is Volume 3 of four volumes. Volume 1 is published as FHWA/RD-80/012,

"Rational Approach to Site Investigation." Volume 2 is published as FHWA/
RD-80/013, "In Situ Testing Techniques." Volume 4 is published as FHWA/
RD-80/080, "Case Studies."

This report presents the use and significance of geo technical parameters in
the design and construction of tunnels. It discusses the commonly used
tunnel design methods and the impact of geotechnical parameters on the design
of tunnels. Also, this report considers the geotechnical parameters that can
be obtained before the initiation of a project and which would be of value in
tunnel construction.

This report should serve the needs of geotechnical, structural, and civil
engineers who are planning or designing an underground structure.

Copies of the report are being distributed to individual researchers and

engineers by FHWA memorandum. Additional copies may be obtained from the
National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield,
Virginia 22161. / y /O

Charles F. Scheffey
Director, Office of Research
Federal Highway Administration

NOTICE

This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the Department

of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The
United States Government assumes no liability for its contents or
use thereof. The contents of this report reflect the views of the
contractor, who is responsible for the accuracy of the data pre-
sented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official
views or policy of the Department of Transportation. This report
does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation.

The United States Government does not endorse products or manufacturers,

Trade or manufacturers' names appear herein only because they are
considered essential to the object of this document.
 Technical Report Documentation Page

1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Cotalog No.

FHWA/RD-80/014
4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date

REPRESENTATIVE GROUND PARAMETERS FOR March 1981

STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS OF TUNNELS 6. Performing Organization Code

Volume 3. Tunnel Design and Construction

8. Performing Organization Report No.
7. Author's)

D. Hampton, J. S. Jin, and 3. P. Black

9. Performing Organization Nome and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS)

Delon Hampton 6c Associates, Chartered 35B3-032

6001 Montrose Road, Suite 800 11. Contract or Grant No.

Rockville, Maryland 20852 DOT-FH-1 1-9150

13. Type of Report ond Period Covered
12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address Final Report
Offices of Research and Development Third of Four Volumes
Federal Highway Administration 9/23/76-12/31/80
Department of Transportation 14. Sponsoring Agency Code
.ode

Washington, D.C. 20590 feO 1120

15. Supplementary Notes

DEPARTMENT OF
FHWA Contract Manager: Dr. D. A. Linger, HRS-11
TRANSPORTATION
16. Abstract
MAY 1 1 had

LIBRARY
the third in a series reporting the results of the aBSW li't!ed 's*edy p«*4$is
This report is
!a
s

document, Volume 3, is principally concerned with summarization of currently used analytical

design procedures, ascertaining the geotechnical parameters required as input into these
design procedures, and assessing the significance of these geotechnical parameters.

Volume 2 is principally concerned with in situ site investigation techniques but also
considers the preliminary phases of a site investigation program, classification and
correlation systems applicable to underground design and construction, and large scale field
testing procedures. Volume 1 is concerned with the thought processes and considerations
related to the planning and supplementation of site investigation programs for tunnel design
and construction. It is intended that these documents will provide guidance to those
engineers responsible for the planning and implementation of site investigation programs
related to tunnel design and construction. This report also will be of value to owners,
contractors, and others in the underground construction community. Volume k will
summarize published case studies on tunnel design and construction with a view toward
highlighting lessons learned and benefits received from a rigorous subsurface investigation for
tunnel design and construction.

17. Key Words 18. Distribution Statement

Site Investigation, Tunneling, Design, No restrictions. This document is available
Construction, Classification, Correlation to the public through the National Technical
Information Services^ Springfield, Virginia
22161

19. Security Classif. (of this report) 20. Security Classif. (of this page) 21. No. of Pages 22. Price

Unclassified Unclassified 201

Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized

 « -

S .Sell 3*
st(l«l

in i
•
.it
a i „ „
s ]
Ihll ilis ii itlifli 3
. -O

8.-

* x
— » 3 * i i 8<^ a Is
ta
©© m
**» »; *4
^* o
-.
253 *». <-.
o ol « e« •- * SI

|
I s § I
ii i
1 1 i
ifsij -a
1 § i if liil ill ijiili i
< m
i i

V»
1 g c £ j Vi~sj ,f

<
It.
K it ii « si « « w « »i « n n oi • i i it » t t

X
e

T|T T|T T|T T|T T|T T|T IMM

o T|'l' 'l'|T 'I'l'l' T|'l' 'I'jM* T|T T|T T|T 'l'|T T|T TIT
u
1 inches

S S e 5 Ve-O 2 ecf EE

i
I - -
it

j
f§5. • * a 25
§115 lis II i
iiii SSS • * • » u o
ii !
8 Stl
u u E ji ill! ill liillilli
I

s2

1°
IS 0» •( «8* «, 1
<• o © «m o toiooooomoo I
S?
33 33
|3
is
S u»
'J N

• 3
s
JJ ii -I!
-a 6 .H .V

iii! iiiii fir tilth!!

;1
S ii

o
1 £ 9
1 5C^1 "kWl 3 5 tJ!.«»iVt

11
 PREFACE
This is the third in a series of reports documenting the findings of a study funded by
the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) entitled "Representative Ground Parameters
for Structural Analysis of Tunnels." Volume 1 deals with the philosophy and approach to
site investigation for design and construction of tunnels. Volume 2 presents an evaluation
of commonly used exploratory techniques for determining the in situ properties of soil and
rock. In addition, this volume presents a discussion of classification systems and
correlations used in the design and construction of tunnels.

Volume 3, this volume, considers the use and significance of geotechnical

parameters inthe design and construction of tunnels. It discusses tunnel design methods
commonly used, the geotechnical parameters required as input to these design methods,
and the impact of these required input parameters on tunnel design. Finally, this volume
considers geotechnical parameters which can be obtained a priori, and would be of value in
tunnel construction.

Volume 4 summarizes case studies on tunnel design and construction with a view
toward highlighting lessons learned and benefits received from a rigorous subsurface
investigation for tunnel design and construction.

The Board of Consultants for this project contributed significantly to this volume.
In particular, detailed written comments were received from Mr. T. G. McCusker, Dr. R.
B. Peck, and Mr. Eugene B. Waggoner which added significantly to the quality of this
document.

in
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

1.0 INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 Concept of Study 1

1.2 Scope 1

2.0 DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF TUNNELS IN SOFT GROUND 3

2.1 Introduction 3

2.2 Review of Tunnel Liner Design Theories Currently Used 3

2.2.1 Tunnel Liner Design Based on Hypothetical Loads 3

2.2.2 Tunnel Liner Design Based on Continuum Mechanics 9
2.2.3 Tunnel Liner Design Based on Deformation Consideration 9

2.2.3.1 Ring Load 9

2.2.3.2 Bending 11

2.3 Construction of Tunnels in Soft Ground 12

2.3.1 Ground Behavior During Tunneling 12

2.3.2 Methods of Tunneling 21

2.4 Displacement Around Soft Ground Tunnels 22

2.5 Tunnel Lining Systems in Soft Ground 23

2.5.1 Cast-in-Place Concrete Liners 23

2.5.2 Fabricated Steel Liner Plates 24
2.5.3 Cast Iron Liner Plates 24
2.5.4 Precast Concrete Segments 25

2.6 Recently Developed Tunnel Liner Design Methods 25

2.6.1 Closed Form Solutions 30

2.6.2 Discrete Method Solutions 35
2.6.3 Interactive Solution 41

2.6.3.1 Comparison with Peck, et al. (1972) 45

IV
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE
2.7 Geotechnical Parameters for Tunneling in Soft Ground 45

2.7.1 General 45
2.7.2 Design ^g
2.7.3 Construction ^g

2.7.3.1 Temporary Support 49

2.7.3.2 Water Problems 49
2.7.3.3 Stability Problems 50
2.7.3.4 Safety Problems 50
2.7.3.5 Best Construction Method 50

2.8 Conclusions 53

2.8.1 Design 53
2.8.2 Construction 54

3.0 DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF TUNNELS IN ROCK 55

3.1 Introduction ^
3.2 Review of Tunnel Design Methods Currently Used ^
3.3 Construction of Tunnels in Rock 57

3.3.1 Rock Mass Tunneling Behavior 57

3.3.1.1 Loosening Rock 57

3.3.1.2 Crushed Rock 63
3.3.1.3 Squeezing Rock 63
3.3.1.4 Swelling Rock 64

3.3.2 Geotechnical Problems in Rock Tunneling 64

3.3.2.1 Rock Problems 64

3.3.2.2 Water Problems 65
3.3.2.3 Gas Problems 66

3.3.3 Methods of Tunneling 66

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE
3.4 Tunnel Support Systems and Lining in Rock 67

3.4.1 Factors Influencing the Behavior of Lining Systems in Rock 67

3.4.2 Primary and Secondary Linings 67
3.4.3 Steel Ribs and Wood Lagging 67
3.4.4 Rock Bolts 68
3.4.5 Shotcrete 70
3.4.6 Bernold Lining System 71

3.5 Lining Design in Rock Based on Rock Classification Systems .

71

3.5.1 Rock Quality Designation (RQD) Classification 74

3.5.2 Japan Rock Quality Classification 74
3.5.3 South African Geomechanics Classification 74
3.5.4 Rock Mass Quality 75
3.5.5 Rock Structure Rating 75
3.5.6 Review of Methods Based on Rock Classification Systems 77

3.6 Pre-Bidding Geotechnical Report for Rock Tunneling 77

3.7 Geotechnical Parameters for Tunneling in Rock 78

3.7.1 Temporary Support Design 78

3.7.2 Water Problems 82
3.7.3 Stability Problems 82
3.7.4 Safety 82
3.7.5 Best Construction Method 82

3.8 Summary and Conclusion 83

4.0 INFLUENCE OF GEOTECHNICAL PARAMETERS ON PERMANENT 84

LINER DESIGN

4.1 Introduction 84

4.2 Approach 89

4.3 Cast-in-Place Concrete Lining in Soft Ground 89

4.4 Cast-in-Place Concrete Lining in Transition Material 96

4.5 Cast-in-Place Concrete Lining in Rock 101

4.5.1 Distributed Loading 106

4.5.2 Block Loading 118

vi
 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE
4.6 Flexible Liner in Soft Ground 123

4.7 Other Computer Methods in Tunnel Design 131

4.7.1 Studies Using Potential Computer Programs for Tunnel 136

Design in Soft Ground
4.7.2 Studies Using Potential Computer Programs for Tunnel 135
Design in Rock

4.8 Summary 137

5.0 REVIEW OF CURRENT PRACTICES FOR TUNNEL LINER HO

DESIGN

5.1 Introduction 1^0

5.2 WMATA Tunnel System 1^0

5.2.1 Design Criteria of WMATA Tunnel System [^

5.2.2 Geotechnical Information of WMATA Tunnel System 144
5.2.3 Tunnel Liner Design of WMATA Tunnel System \!±t±

5.2.3. Design of a Cast-in-Place, Circular-Shaped 144

Reinforced Concrete Rigid Liner in Soft Ground
5.2.3.2 Design of a Cast-in-Place, Horseshoe-Shaped 157
Reinforced Concrete Rigid Liner in Soft Ground
5.2.3.3 Design of a Fabricated Steel and Cast Iron Flexible 157
Tunnel Liner in Soft Ground
5.2.3.4 Design of Permanent Tunnel Liners in Rock 159

5.3 Design Criteria of BART, CUTD, and MTA Systems 163

5.3.1 Design Criteria of BART System 163

5.3.2 Design Criteria of CUTD System 163
5.3.3 Design Criteria of MTA System 172

5.4 Discussions 173

5.4.1 Structural Analysis of Tunnel Liners in Soft Ground 173

5.4.2 Structural Analysis of Tunnel Liners in Rock 173
5.4.3 Drainage Effect on Design of Tunnel Liners 173
5.4.4 Development of Design Criteria 174
5.4.5 Influence of Geotechnical Parameters on Tunnel Liner 174
Design

5.5 Conclusions 175

vii
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE
6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 1 77

7.0 REFERENCES 1 78

Vlll
 LIST OF TABLES

TABLE NO. TITLE PAGE

1 Design Loads for Tunnel in Soil (Terzaghi, 1946)
3

2 Soil Classification for Tunneling (Terzaghi, 1950) 13

3 Behavioristic Classification of Various Soils (Deere, et al., 1969) 14

4 Significant Properties of Clay (Proctor and White, 1977) 16

5 Significant Properties of Silt (Proctor and White, 1977) 17

6 Significant Properties of Silty Sand (Proctor and White, 1977) 18

7 Significant Properties of Sand or Sandy Gravel with Clay 19

Binder (Proctor and White, 1977)

8 Significant Properties of Clean Gravel and Sand (Proctor and 20

White, 1977)

9 Estimated Manufacture Costs, U.S. Dollars per Foot of Tunnel 29

in Firm Ground Conditions (Birkmyer, 1975)

10 Design and Construction Problems of Mined Tunnels (After Gould) 51

11 Terzaghi Rock Loads (Terzaghi, 1946) 55

12 Guidelines for Selection of Primary Support for 20-ft to 40-ft Tunnels 58

in Rock (Deere, et al., 1970)

13 Outline of the Pre-Bidding Geotechnical Report (Cording, et al., 1975) 79

14 Properties Used for Lining Models gg

15 Relative Importance of the Various Parameters Studied on the 138

Maximum Axial Force (P ) and the Maximum Moment (M)
ct

16 Summary of Related Information of Soft Ground Tunnels 141

in WMATA System

17 Summary of Related Information of Rock Tunnels in WMATA 143

System

18 Soil Properties for Design (Mueser, et al., 1976) 152

19 Average Vertical Load on Rock Tunnel (Mueser, et al., 1967) 154

IX
 LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE NO. TITLE PAGE

1 Design Loads for Tunnel in Soil (Hewett and Oohannesson, 4
1922)

2 Moments and Thrusts Related to the Moment of Inertia 6

of a Tunnel Lining (Bull, 1944)

3 Roof Load in Crushed Rock and Sand (Terzaghi, 1946) 7

4 Maximum Moment of the Liners vs. Modulus of Elasticity 10

for Soils (Morgan, 1961)

5 Composite System, Precast Concrete Lining (Birkmyer, 1975) 26

6 Steel Pocket System, Precast Concrete Lining (Birkmyer, 27

(1975)

7 Through Bolt System, Precast Concrete Lining (Birkmyer, 1975) 28

S Loading Conditions Used in the Closed Form Solution (Paul, 31

et al., 1974; Peck, et al., 1972)

9 Variation of Thrust Coefficient with Flexible Ratio (Paul, 32

et al., 1974; Peck, et al., 1972)

10 Variation of Moment Coefficient with Flexible Ratio (Peck, 33

et al., 1972)

11 Variation of Thrust Coefficient with Compressibility Ratio 34

(Paul, et al., 1974; Peck, et al., 1972)

12 Variation of Maximum Interfacial Shear Stress Coefficient 36

with Flexible Ratio (Paul, et al., 1974)

13 Variation of Diameter Change with Flexible Ratio (Peck, 37

et al., 1972)

14 Variation of Thrust and Moment Coefficient and Diameter 38

Change with Depth of Burial (Peck, et al., 1972)

15 Assumed Loading Conditions (Paul, et al., 1974) 40

16 Distribution of Forces Around the Liner for Various Solutions 42

(Paul, et al., 1974)

17 Longitudinal Variation of Elastic Displacements Due 43

to Excavation (Paul, et al., 1974)
 LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE NO. TITLE PAGE

18 Comparison of Crown Thrust Coefficients 46

19 Comparison of Moment Coefficients 47

20 Relationship of Rock Load Factors and RQD (Deere, 60

et al., 1969)

21 Classification and Design (Liner and Lauffer, 1970) 61

22 Comparison of Support Loads for Rock Bolted Chambers 62

and Steel Rib Supported Tunnels (Cording, et al., 1971)

23 Reinforced Rock Arch Formed by Rock Bolts (Talobre, 1957) 69

24 General Installation Procedures of Bernold Support System 72

in Tunnels (United States Gypsum, 1979)

25 Bernold System Boarding and Reinforcement Sheet 73

(MacCollum, 1974, 1976)

26 Classification and Design (Einstein, et al., 1979) 76

27 Liner Models Used in the Study 87

28 Variation of Axial Force with Depth of Cover for a Cast- 90

in-Place Liner in Soft Ground

29 Variation of Moment with Depth of Cover for a Cast- 91

in-Place Liner in Soft Ground

30 Variation of Axial Force with the Coefficient of Lateral 93

Earth Pressure for a Cast-in-Place Liner in Soft Ground

31 Variation of Moment with the Coefficient of Lateral Earth 94

Pressure for a Cast-in-Place Liner in Soft Ground

32 Variation of Axial Force with the Position of the Water Table 95

for a cast-in-Place Liner in Soft Ground

33 Variation of Moment with the Position of the Water Table 97

for a Cast-in-Place Liner in Soft Ground

34 Variation of Axial Force with Depth of Cover for a Cast- 98

in-Place Liner in Transition Material

35 Variation of Moment with Depth of Cover for a Cast-in-Place 100

Liner in Transition Material

xi
 LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE NO. TITLE PAGE

36 Variation of Axial Force with the Coefficient of Lateral Earth 102
Pressure for a Cast-in-Place Liner in Transition Material

37 Variation of Moment with the Coefficient of Lateral Earth iq3

Pressure for a Cast-in-Place Liner in Transition Material

38 Variation of Axial Force with the Position of the Water Table 1 04

for a Cast-in-Place Liner in Transition Material

39 Variation of Moment with the Position of the Water Table 105

for a Cast-in-Place Liner in Transition Material

40 Variation of Axial Force with Vertical Rock Load for a Cast- 107
in-Place Lining

41 Variation of Moment with Vertical Rock Load for a Cast- 109

in-Place Lining

42 Variation of Axial Force with Vertical and Horizontal Rock 1 1

Load for a Cast-in-Place Lining

43 Variation of Moment with Vertical and Horizontal Rock Load 1 12

for a Cast-in-Place Lining

44 Variation of Axial Force with the Coefficient of Lateral 114

Pressure for a Cast-in-Place Lining in Rock

45 Variation of Moment with the Coefficient of Lateral Pressure 115

for a Cast-in-Place Lining in Rock

46 Variation of Axial Force with the Position of the Water Table 116
for a Cast-in-Place Lining in Rock

47 Variation of Moment with the Position of the Water Table 117

for a Cast-in-Place Lining in Rock

48 Variation of Axial Force with Dip Angle for Block Loading 119
Case 1

49 Variation of Moment with Dip Angle for Block Loading 1 20

Case 1

50 Variation of Axial Force with Dip Angle for Block Loading 121
Case 2

Xll
 LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE NO. TITLE PAGE

51 Variation of Moment with Dip Angle for Block Loading 122

Case 2

52 Variation of Axial Force with Dip Angle for Block Loading 124
Case 3

53 Variation of Moment with Dip Angle for Block Loading 125

Case 3

54 Variation of Axial Force with Dip Angle for Block Loading 126
Case 4

55 Variation of Moment with Dip Angle for Block Loading 127

Case 4

56 Variation of Axial Force with Depth of Cover for a Flexible 129

Liner in Soft Ground

57 Variation of Moment with Depth of Cover for a Flexible 130

Liner in Soft Ground

58 Variation of Axial Force with the Coefficient of Lateral 132

Earth Pressure for a Flexible Liner in Soft Ground

59 Variation of Moment with the Coefficient of Lateral 133

Earth Pressure for a Flexible Liner in Soft Ground
60 Variation of Axial Force with the Position of the Water 134
Table for a Flexible Liner in Soft Ground

61 Variation of Moment with the Position of the Water 135

Table for a Flexible Liner in Soft Ground

62 Design Loading for Circular Tunnel Before 1970 (Mueser, 146

et al., 1969)

63 Design Loading for Circular Tunnel After 1970 (Mueser, 146

et al., 1976)

64 Design Loading for Horseshoe Tunnel (Mueser, et al., 1969 147

and 1976)

65 Design Pressure for Rock Tunnel (Mueser, et al., 1967) 148

66 Loading Conditions for Rock Tunnel (DeLeuw, et al., 1973) 149

Xlll
 LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE NO. TITLE PAGE

67 Loading Conditions for Rock Tunnel (DeLeuw, et al., 1973) 150

68 Loading Conditions for Rock Tunnel (DeLeuw, et al., 1973) 151

69 Design Loading for Sound Rock Section (Singstad, et ah, 161

1974)

70 Design Loading for Decomposed Rock Section (Singstad, 162

et al., 1974)

71 BART Ground Pressures for Tunnel in Sand or Predominantly 164

Granular Ground (Deere, et al., 1969)

72 BART Ground Pressures for Tunnel in Soft Plastic Clay 165

(Deere, et al., 1969)

73 BART Effects of Vertically Adjacent Tunnel (Deere, et al., 166

1969)

74 BART Effects of Adjacent Tunnels (Deere, et al., 1969) 167

75 CUTD- Analysis for Stability of Liner Plate Tunnels (DeLeuw, 168

et al., 1975)

76 CUTD-Design Conditions for Permanent Tunnel Liners 169

(DeLeuw, et al., 1975)

77 CUTD-Tunnels in Clay, Stability of Working Face (DeLeuw, 170

et al., 1975)

78 CUTD-Trough Widths, Subsidence Over Tunnels in Clay 171

(DeLeuw, et al., 1975)

xiv
 LIST OF PRINCIPAL SYMBOLS

B - tunnel diameter

C - compressibility ratio

c - cohesion

D - diameter of excavation

D - depth of cover

D - position of water table from crown

d - block length

E - Young's modulus of elasticity for steel

E - modulus of elasticity for soils

E^ - modulus of elasticity of liner

E - modulus of elasticity of medium

F - flexibility ratio

f - side shear

H - Terzaghi's equivalent depth of overburden without arching effect

I - moment of inertia

I
- effective moment of inertia of the liner per linear foot
l

3 - joint alteration number

3 - joint set number

3 - joint roughness number

3 - joint water reduction number

K - modified coefficient of lateral earth pressure

K - ratio of lateral to vertical rock pressure (Section 5.5)

K - coefficient of active earth pressure

xv
K - spring constant for sound or decomposed rock

k - coefficient of subgrade reaction

k - normal component of subgrade reaction

k~
t
- tangential component of subgrade reaction

M - bending moment in the liner

Mc - constrained modulus of the medium

P - ring load per linear foot

P - axial force in the liner

a

P - compressed air pressure

P - theoretical pressure producing buckling

P - average vertical rock pressure

R
P - radial load on the liner

P - groundwater pressure

P - vertical rock load

p - maximum passive soil pressure

- rock support pressure

p

- average horizontal pressure

p^
- average vertical pressure
p

- rock mass quality

Q
qj - bearing capacity of the footing

R - radius of excavation

R - radius of the tunnel liner

R - average radius of liner

S - shear force on the liner

T - thrust in the liner

t - lining thickness

xvi
V - pressure of overburden

W - difference between average vertical pressure and average horizontal

pressure

W - rock load

w - block width

Z - ground depth to the tunnel springline

a - block angle

a - inclination angle of a rock fracture

H - total unit weight

'o
- unit weight of water

<5 - allowable deflection

6 - inclination angle of a rock fracture

v - Poisson's ratio

v - Poisson's ratio of liner

v
m
- Poisson's ratio of medium

<f>
- effective friction angle

xvn
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Due to extensive construction of tunnels throughout the world in recent years,
coupled with tunneling related research during the same period, progress has been made in
extending the state-of-the-art of tunnel design and construction. Correspondingly, an
investigative study to synthesize construction and analysis experience is worthwhile in
preparation for extension of the state-of-the-art of tunnel design and construction. On
this basis, the influence of geotechnical parameters on the design and construction of
tunnels needed to be studied, and their impact on future site investigation programs
ascertained.

In order to study the geotechnical parameters actually used in tunnel design, a

thorough review of the detailed design computations of twenty tunnel sections in the
Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) transit system was performed,
and the design criteria of four transit systems were summarized (see Chapter 5). In
Chapters 2 and 3, a general review of currently available tunnel design theories and
construction methods are presented. A sensitivity study of the related geotechnical
parameters on permanent liner design is reported in Chapter k. The conclusions and
recommendations of this investigation are discussed in Chapter 6.

1.1 CONCEPT OF STUDY

Efficient, safe and economical tunnel design and construction requires an
understanding of how the ground will perform both during the tunneling process as well as
afterwards. The purpose of a subsurface investigation program is to provide the basic
inputs required for tunnel design and construction.

The research reported herein is part of a comprehensive study, funded by the

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), entitled "Representative Ground Parameters for
Structural Analysis of Tunnels." This is Volume 3 of a four-volume report which is
concerned with the use and significance of geotechnical parameters in the design and
construction of tunnels. It discusses tunnel design methods commonly used, the
geotechnical parameters required as input to these design methods, and the impact of
these required parameters on tunnel design. Also considered are geotechnical parameters
which can be obtained a priori and would be of value in tunnel construction.

Volume 1 (Peck, et al., 1980) discusses the philosophy and approach to site
investigation for design and construction of tunnels. Volume 2 (Hampton, et al., 1980)
evaluates in situ site investigation techniques which are applicable to obtaining
geotechnical parameters for design and construction of tunnels. In addition, Volume 2 also
discusses classification and correlation systems which may be used in tunnel design and
construction.

Volume k reviews published case histories on tunnel design and construction. It

attempts to highlight lessons to be learned from the past as well as benefits which have,
or may have, accrued from site investigation for tunnel design and construction.

1.2 SCOPE
In order to assess the geotechnical parameters actually used in tunnel design,
detailed design computations for tunnel sections of the Washington Metropolitan Area
Transit Authority (WMATA) transit system were reviewed, and the design criteria of four

1
urban transit systems were summarized (see Chapter 5). The aforementioned information
was sought because it should represent the current state-of-practice of tunnel design in
the United States and was obtainable via a reasonable effort.

Chapters 2 and 3 review currently available tunnel design theories and construction
methods, and Chapter k summarizes a sensitivity study of the relative importance of the
geotechnical parameters used in the design of the permanent tunnel liner. Chapter 6
presents the conclusions and recommendations of this study.
2.0 DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF TUNNELS IN SOFT GROUND

2.1 INTRODUCTION
On most tunnel jobs, large expenditures must be made for material and
equipment during the construction stage, and the type of construction equipment will be
influenced by anticipated ground conditions. If ground conditions are misjudged, not
described accurately, or are missed entirely, long delays and excessive expenditures
may result. Therefore, a thorough site investigation as well as sound engineering
analysis and design must be performed prior to construction. This includes
determination of representative geotechnical parameters related to tunnel design and
construction, review of available and applicable design methods and selection of a
design methodology, consideration of possible liner systems and selection of a
permanent liner system, and consideration of possible problems related to construction.
Final design must also consider such post construction factors as reliability,
maintainability and safety.

2.2 REVIEW OF TUNNEL LINER DESIGN THEORIES CURRENTLY USED

Tunnel liner design methods are based on assumed loads the surrounding
materials exert on the liner. The resulting moments, thrusts, and shear forces at any
point in the liner are determined through structural analysis.

The major difficulty with these methods is in the estimation of the external
loads, which usually are chosen by experience. If the liner is assumed rigid, external
loads are considered independent of the deformation of the liner. Conversely, if the
liner is considered flexible, the external loads are assumed to vary with liner
deformations. In recent years, new methods have been developed which consider the
properties of the surrounding material (i.e., Young's Modulus, Poisson's ratio, etc.). In
this section, some theories currently utilized will be discussed. The more recently
developed theories will be briefly described in Section 2.6.

2.2.1 Tunnel Liner Design Based on Hypothetical Loads

Empirical, constant loads for liner design are usually based on simplified
mechanisms of behavior of soil material around the tunnel liner. The loads may be
expressed as functions of the friction angle and unit weight of the soil, but may not
necessarily represent actual soil behavior.

One of the first empirical loading schemes for a circular tunnel section was
proposed by Hewett and Johannesson (1922). This method is still utilized for the design
of rigid liners. The loading system is applied to a linear-elastic elliptical ring, and
general equations for thrust, shear, and moment in the liner are derived. As a final
step, these equations are specified to such conditions as: wet ground, dry ground, and
firm, water-bearing ground. As shov/n in Figure i, the interaction between the tunnel
lining and the surrounding soil can be included, to some extent, in selection of the
factor K. In most cases, a conservative value of K equal to 0.5 or 0.6 is assumed.
 1. THE WEIGHT OF THE UPPER HALF
OF THE TUNNEL.

i/£ Sym 2. THE WEIGHT OF THE EARTH WITHIN

THE AREA MARKED 2.
3. A UNIFORM UPWARD FORCE BAL-
ANCING AND 2.
I

4. THE WEIGHT OF THE LOADING ABOVE

THE TOP OF THE TUNNEL.
5. A UNIFORM UPWARD REACTION
BALANCING 4.

6. THE HORIZONTAL PRESSURE DUE TO

THE WATER ABOVE THE TOP OF THE
TUNNEL.

7. THE HORIZONTAL PRESSURE DUE TO THE WATER FROM TOP TO BOTTOM OF

THE TUNNEL.
8. THE HORIZONTAL PRESSURE DUE TO THE EARTH ABOVE THE TOP OF THE
TUNNEL EQUAL TO THE PRODUCT OF THE WEIGHT OF EARTH (BUOYANT
UNIT WEIGHT IF SUBMERGED) ABOVE THE TOP OF THE TUNNEL AND THE
FACTOR K, WHERE C < K < l/C .

9. THE HORIZONTAL PRESSURE DUE TO THE EARTH BETWEEN THE TOP AND
THE BOTTOM OF THE TUNNEL. AT ANY POINT, THE PRESSURE IS THE
PRODUCT OF THE WEIGHT OF SOIL BETWEEN THAT POINT AND THE TOP
OF THE TUNNEL AND THE FACTOR K. SOIL WEIGHED AS IN 8.

NOTE I
- sin a a = ANGLE OF REPOSE OF GROUND.
C = = 1/3 TO
I + sin a

FIGURE I. DESIGN LOADS FOR TUNNEL IN SOIL (HEWETT AND

JOHANNESSON, 1922)
 Drucker (1943) made some improvement in the design method of Hewett and
Johannesson (1922) by introducing the lateral soilreactions induced by the lateral
deflection of the liner. He assumed the horizontal soil reactions as continuous functions
of depth and the vertical soil reactions to be uniformly distributed.

Bull (1944) developed a rational method for determining the magnitude and
distribution of the soil reactions around a shield-driven tunnel liner. In this method,
hypothetical (active) loading conditions are assumed: the thrust, shear, and moment
produced at the support are first determined. Utilizing a 16-segment ring
approximation, the values at each joint can be obtained. From elastic formulae, the
deflections at the joints under the combined influence of active loads and soil reactions
can be expressed in a summation of simple products. However, the deflections may also
be expressed in a different way; i.e., as functions of the soil reaction and settlement.
By equating the two sets of expressions, a number of simultaneous equations are
obtained from which the soil reactions can be determined. Since the deformation of the
liner is also dependent on the stiffness of the liner itself, a sensitivity analysis was
made on the moment and thrust against different liner thickness, as shown in Figure 2.
Through this analysis, it is suggested that a potential saving in material and labor can
accrue from the development of a suitable form of scaffold system to counteract the
jacking force resulting from advancing the tunnel shield. Bull's analysis assumes that
the soil is a homogeneous, elastic, isotropic material and that the joints are 100%
efficient and do not effect the stiffness of the lining around its perimeter. It is not
possible to adjust the analysis for other conditions more likely to exist. However, it
does reflect the first real attempt to show that flexible linings respond better than rigid
linings to the type of loading to which tunnels are subjected. Furthermore, the soil
reaction coefficient actually varies with several factors. These factors include the type
of soils, the properties of the soils, the thickness of the soil layers, the size and shape of
the contact area, and the magnitude of the loads. Also, the choice of type of liner may
depend on the construction method, corrosion potential, etc.

Based on a laboratory investigation of perfectly cohesionless sand, Terzaghi

(1946) suggested that the weight of sandy soil or crushed rock above a tunnel is only
partially supported by the liner. The rest of the overburden weight is transferred by
arching action to the soil at the sides of the tunnel. Figure 3 shows the arching concept
and the assumed simplified loading system. Terzaghi proposed values of H , as defined
in Figure 3, and the resulting vertical and horizontal pressures from numerous model
tests, and his recommended values are presented in Table 1. Terzaghi's loads were
developed for a typical support system consisting of steel ribs and lagging for the
primary lining and cast-in-place reinforced concrete for the secondary lining. In
general, the initial or intermediate loads would be used for the design of the primary
support system, while the ultimate loads would be utilized for the secondary liner.
Since the side friction and arching effect can only be fully mobilized when sufficiently
large soil deformations occur around the tunnel, this design theory may not be
applicable to tunnels in urban areas where ground movement is restricted (Deere, et al.,
1969, and Golder Associates and James F. MacLaren Limited, 1976). Also, in the case
of single track, dual tunnels, the excavation of the second tunnel may break the soil
arch around the first tunnel. Other factors affecting the integrity of a soil arch over
an existing tunnel would include future tunnel construction for parallel utilities, pile
driving for new building foundations, deep trench excavations for utility construction
and/or repair and seismic effects.
 INVERT CROWN
50 i r + 100
CO 0.13-
a. 40
CO
IRUST a.
30
MOMENTS OF
20 - NERTIA IN x
INCHES 4 - o
to
3 -
tr 10
x
UJ

o
5

FIGURE 2. MOMENTS AND THRUSTS RELATED TO THE MOMENT

OF INERTIA OF A TUNNEL LINING (BULL, 1944)
 SURFACE

D(ZONE OF ARCHING)

a. GROUND ARCH

SURFACE

CARRIED BY ARCHING
APPROX B+H t I

CARRIED BY WEDGE ace

H CARRIED BY ROOF
CARRIED BY WEDGE bdf
r
I H,
*- eV1- ^3-|-/fcl
ION OF
DIRECTION \ ( )_ / H,
MOVEMENT
DURING EXCA- \ /
VATION PROCESS /

b. ASSUMED SUPPORT LOADING

FIGURE 3. ROOF LOAD IN CRUSHED ROCK AND SAND

(TERZAGHL I946)
 TABLE i

DESIGN LOADS FOR TUNNEL IN SOIL

(Terzaghi, 1946)

(A) Values of H

Material Time H min. H max.

P P

Dense Sand Initial 0.54 (B+H ) 1.20 (B+H )

Ultimate 0.62 (B+H ) 1.38 (B+H )

Loose Sand Initial 0.94 (B+H ) 1.20 (B+H )

Ultimate 1.08 (B+H ) 1.38 (B+H )

Notes: ]. H min. corresponds to excellent mining operations and

an associated yield of 0.01 (B+H ).

H max. corresponds to poor mining operations and an

associated yield of 0.15 (B+H ).

Values of H are applicable to tunnels below the water table.

For tunnels above the water table 0.^ H should be taken.

P

(B) Values of P and P,

v n

P
v
= -5 H
p

P. = 0.37 (0.5H+H )
h p

Where t is the unit weight of the material (submerged unit

weight 1 for tunnels below the water table).

 In summary, if is to be used as a design
the hypothetical constant load approach
modulus of subgrade reaction
tool, either the coefficient of the lateral pressure or the
must be assumed. Based on the tunnel liner design theories reviewed (Hewett and
Johannesson, 1922; Drucker, 1943; Bull, 1944; and Deere, et al., 1969), it is generally
recommended that the vertical load on the tunnel liner be taken as the fuil weight of
the overburden.

2.2.2 Tunnel Liner Design Based on Continuum Mechanics

Morgan (1961) developed a theory of tunnel liner design by assuming the soil to
be a linear elastic medium in a state of plane strain. Figure 4 shows the value of the
maximum bending moment of a liner as a function of the elasticity of the soil.
Significant savings can be achieved, if the strength of the soil is taken into
consideration. However, large bending momenls can be developed in soft to very soft
clay (modulus of elasticity E = 4 x 10 kn/m to 3 x 10 kn/m ). Furthermore, this
theory assumes full slippage condition and considers only the interaction between the
tunnel liner and the surrounding soil due to the distortional component of an assumed
radial stress distribution.

In order to have a better understanding of the stress distribution in a soil mass,

Deere, et al. (1969), summarized theories of elastic and elasto-plastic stresses and
displacements around tunnels under some simplified assumptions. However, those
theories still cannot fully simulate soil performance either during construction or in the
post construction state.

2.2.3 Tunnel Liner Design Based on Deformation Consideration

Based on past experience and field observation of the tunnel liner performance in
soft ground, Deere, et al. (1969), and Peck (1969), have proposed a new approach to the
design of soft ground tunnel liners. This semi-empirical design procedure consists of
four separate steps:

(1) Provision for adequate ring loads.

(2) Provision for bending stresses due to anticipated distortions.

(3) Adequate consideration of the possibility of buckling, such as by jacking

forces, etc.

(4) Allowance for any significant external conditions.

Items (1) and be briefly discussed in the sections below. Item (3) is not a
(2) will
basis for liner rather, it is a criterion for evaluating the adequacy of the
design;
designed liner. Item (4) considers the effect of parallel tunnels, foundation loads, future
excavations, etc. The evaluation of these quantities is primarily by engineering
judgment and is added into the factor of safety of the tunnel liner.

2.2.3.1 Ring Load

In accordance with the previous discussion, the vertical load on the tunnel liner
should be taken as the full weight of the overburden. The coefficient of lateral earth
pressure is usually less than 1. Thus, the maximum ring load is:
 500

MODULUS OF ELASTICITY FOR SOILS (Ec)

KN/m 2 (Log Scale)

FIGURE 4. MAXIMUM MOMENT OF THE LINERS VS. MODULUS

OF ELASTICITY FOR SOILS (MORGAN, 1961

10

i
 p _ 1 .z.R (2- 1

where

P = ring load (Ib/lin ft of tunnel),

t = total unit weight of material (pcf),

Z = depth to the tunnel springline (ft), and

R = radius of excavation (ft).

For over-consolidated clay, parallel tunnels, etc., the ring load should be increased
accordingly.

2.2.3.2 Bending

From the review of 21 case histories, Peck (1969) found that irrespective of the
rigidity of the liner, the changes in diameter of the liner have rarely exceeded 0.5%.
The distortions are effectively prevented by the strength mobilized in the surrounding
soil. Based on these observations, a safe value of A R/R ratio can be selected. (For
example, 1.0 percent).

The relationship between the induced bending moment and the diameter
distortion can be derived through strength of materials and can be approximated, as
follows:

r3El| >A_R
M = <g!=i) . (.£*) (2 _ 2 )
m R

where:

M = maximum bending moment (lb-ft/lin ft of tunnel),

E = modulus of elasticity of liner (Ib/sq ft),

I = moment of initia of liner (ft /lin ft of tunnel),

R = average radius of liner (ft),

R = radius of excavation (ft), and

AR = change in radius of liner (ft).

Once the change in radius is assumed, the size of the tunnel and the material properties
of the liner are known, and the thickness of the liner is selected, the maximum moment
can be calculated.

This is a simplified rational approach; however, more liner performance data on

soil types in which tunneling experience is lacking are needed to confirm the magnitude
of distortion of the liner to be expected. As mentioned in the previous sections, proper

11
factors of safety must be provided to accommodate other influences, e.g., parallel
tunnels. Also, buckling of tunnel liners may be developed due to high external water
pressure. The theoretical fluid pressure producing buckling from the theory of elasticity
3
is P = 3EI/R .
cr

2.3 CONSTRUCTION OF TUNNELS IN SOFT GROUND

There are three basic requirements for satisfactory construction and performance
of a tunnel (Deere, et al., 1969). The first requirement relates to the possibility of
building the tunnel using a selected method of construction. If the exposed tunnel face or
the wails are unstable, they must be supported by some means, either of temporary or
permanent nature.

that during construction induced settlements must not

The second requirement is
damage adjacent This requirement should lead
or overlying buildings, streets, or utilities.
to the selection of a construction method and liner system which will lead to tolerable
ground movements as the tunnel is advanced.

The third requirement is that the finished tunnel must be capable of withstanding,
during its lifetime, all the loads to which it may be subjected. The requirements imposed
by the normal earth pressures on the permanent liner of the tunnel are usually rather
easily satisfied. The variations from the normal conditions may introduce the principal
adverse influences on the liner, such as parallel tunneling, large excavations close-by the
completed tubes, etc. Furthermore, the final stresses or deformations in the liner may
depend largely on the details of the construction method, the sequence of the construction
events, and the behavior of the surrounding ground during tunneling. Therefore, liner
design methods based on deformation considerations may be more suitable than those
based on hypothetical loadings. However, with improved construction techniques, such as
tail grouting, use of slurry shield, etc., ground disturbance can be further decreased.

2.3.1 Ground Behavior During Tunneling

Terzaghi (1950) characterized ground behavior during tunneling in accordance with
terminology used by tunnel workers, and the stand-up time associated with the type of
ground and groundwater conditions (Table 2 ).

The difficulties and costs of construction of a soft ground tunnel of given

dimensions depend largely on the stand-up time of the ground. The term stand-up time
indicates the time that elapses between the exposure of an area at the roof of a tunnel
and the beginning of noticeable movements of the ground above this area. A major factor
determining the stand-up time of an unsupported roof area with given dimensions is the
position of the groundwater table. Above the groundwater table, the stand-up time
depends essentially on the cohesion and shear strength of the ground. Below the
groundwater table, it depends not only on the strength of the soil but on its average
permeability, and on the degree of continuity of the most permeable constituents of the
formation. A lens of water-bearing sand in a silt stratum may be harmless; a continuous
layer of sand may give rise to a "blow", and if this layer communicates with a large body
of water-bearing sand within a short distance from the tunnel, a catastrophe may result.
Deere, et al. (1969), summarized and tabulated the behavior of various soils as related to
position of the water table as shown in Table 3.

12
 TABLE 2

SOIL CLASSIFICATION FOR TUNNELING

(Terzaghi, 1950)

1
Ground
Classification Tunnel Working Conditions

1. Hard Tunnel heading may be advanced without roof

support.
2. Firm Tunnel heading can be advanced without
roof support, and the permanent support
can be constructed before the ground
will start tomove.
3. Slow Raveling Chunks or flakes of material begin to
drop out of roof or the sides sometime
after the ground has been exposed.
4. Fast Raveling In Fast Raveling ground the process
starts within a few minutes; otherwise
it is referred to as Slow Raveling.

5. Squeezing Ground slowly advances into tunnel without

fracturing and without perceptible increase
of water content in ground surrounding
tunnel. (May not be noticed in tunnel
but cause surface subsidence.)
6. Swelling Like squeezing ground, moves slowly
into tunnel, but the movement is associated
with a very considerable volume increase
in the ground surrounding the tunnel.
7. Running The removal of lateral support on any
surface rising at an angle of more than
about 3k to the horizontal is followed
by a "run", whereby the material flows
like granulated sugar until the slope angle
becomes equal to about 3k .
8. Cohesive Running If the "run" is preceded by a brief period

of raveling, the ground is called Cohesive

Running.
9. Very Soft Squeezing Ground advances rapidly into tunnel
in a plastic flow.
10. Flowing Flowing ground moves like a viscous
liquid. It can invade the tunnei not only
through the roof and the sides but also
through the bottom. If the flow is not
stopped, it continues until the tunnel
is completely filled.

13
 i «

ABOVE GROUNDWATER BELOW GROUNDWATER LEVEL

LEVEL, DRY

x> 00
DC c
c
C
to
HP— -8
£! 00
,
'%
c £
OS
in T NO
'<L>

X in
-2 s « -~
to

ON to
DO to DO
On
c
"c. 'c
c c
3 0)
LO
< OS
O
in
a;
(/5

~*° -L.C
H 0)
> <y
o>
>
LU X to
<D
o
m
III
Qi
XO A
c <4H
.—
O u 1

UJ
kU
U U C o z
•:-•

rci a;

Q U >
--N
a.
> Q. XI UH JH
tO o 1/5 u
J DO
03
to
(I)
to fl3
c
O
to
to
<D
OJ
a 03

in to in DO 3 Xc
D c c to
to
'o
to
O C a
i_
in
01
X
-I
o
> 0'
> a. 0)
k.
k.
c 00
< 03
XG 03
o> u O ktH

> <u
x 01 03 4_l c >
a;

tf
7J a * <U 01 -J
Xo
O X
>>
_03 '5. -n . XI 4-> 01 01
c 0)
c c
03 U OJ OJ —c
o xu 0*
> o
A
1_ lO
III
a 00
Xo
< Xc X k>
k.
0)
c
(/5

c
y 0) XI '3 03
03
~xn -- w W3
to
•2 5 03
o X
"O o O
175 c >CJ <JJ

in y un 5.
I/) 'J
k.

< to LO C C o 03
O o £ ::< (0
+-•
to o O X0)
U 00 u "D oo u u la
C X > or C — i +-•
Z
y > (t,

xc (U 03
01 03 (i)

P > -o
"o>
> 00> > 0) c
to
5
03
OS
u
u
~G
x
U
y
c
03
LO
i 03 03 -o XI
X'
E
Xc0)
4H

O £
4-" DO
o i
in 5 C 01
c o A3

> u x> 0)
.t:
_j 00
i- 03 to
'.0

< ooito £ 0>

c c
c
Cv) (•
X 1/5

175 "O
rTJ
./J
lo =1
03 g E
03
X)
0) :->
"o
c (/) i
4-»
c a 01 E
CO ra a; 01
to c g -o
c
_c £ xi 01
> £ C/J

'c d
03
</5
t/1
O. o ,-- n o 1/5
al
01)
k. o OJ > i_ > (!)
!—
-C n3 01 u 01 01
r H o 01
to X
Ifl
4-. 4-i
c >* i* o ai 03

a;
0>
< X» CD fc Ja co t
to
C !/5

c — J- iA
a> (N ff\

e 1/5
to
x o>
.X) £
0) x
in o o
Q
Q o
< z

14
 Schmidt, et al. (1976), noted that in granular soils below the groundwater table a
small cohesion or cementation has a significant stabilizing effect after the soils have
been adequately dewatered. Knowledge of available cohesion may allow the use of less
expensive construction techniques.

Proctor and White (1977) investigated the influence of significant properties of

soilson their behavior during the advance of a tunnel. Their findings are presented in
Tables k through 8. Below each table, under "Field Identification," a few easy
methods to identify these soils are described. The following paragraph is a brief
extension of the above tables and Peck's (1969) discussion.

In firm a heading may be advanced several feet or more without

ground,
immediate support. raveling ground, the materials above the tunnel or in the upper
In
part of the working face may sooner or later tend to flake off and fall into the heading.
This action will continue and may lead to open cavities above the tunnel or even to a
slump at the surface. Raveling can be prevented if at least moderate support is
provided at an early stage, i.e., before the loosening becomes extensive. Also, in some
instances, raveling ground can be transformed to firm ground by dewatering or chemical
grouting. Squeezing ground can be tunneled successfully by hand methods in free or
compressed air if the rate of squeeze is not excessive. If the rate is excessive, shield
tunneling with compressed air or multiple drifts may be required. However, if
compressed air is used, the pressure intensity should be adequately controlled to prevent
any damage to neighboring facilities. An indication of the air pressure required can be
obtained by considering the stability ratio (N);

1 H-P
a_
N =
S
u

where:
N = stability ratio,

-j = unit weight of the soil,

H = depth to springline,

P = air pressure above atmospheric in the tunnel, and

3.

S = undrained shear strength of the soil.

The stability ratio should normally be six or less, if the tunnel is to be driven without
undue problems and surface settlement is to be controlled satisfactorily. Experience
indicates, however, that if clay soils are insensitive and immediate ground support is
provided, it may be feasible to tunnel satisfactorily in conditions where N is higher
than six.

If seepage pressures toward the working face are permitted to develop, raveling

or running ground may be transformed into flowing ground. Such materials should first
be transformed into raveling or firm ground before tunneling. The transformation may
be economically accomplished, in most instances, by dewatering or with compressed air,
and, occasionally, by chemical grouting or freezing.

15
 4>
C C _j
U
^J
£= 4> 3
-J c .£0 >p 4>
o
"5.2 o c V
C -M <" q.rd .-. *^ )-» c a
C §-2 C O fO +*
> >« *-*
C 00
V +-
u
3
(U
I- n .2
01
"3
•
rd >> ~
!>*
3 •
jd
Hg 5 s« oj
2 > 34* t;
oo o
rd
x
<u
c c
2
rd

Of £
1
!G
«J 0) o o w
o
o
«>
1-
ro
Sr;
<y "a.
c o •^ c
g pt j
•-U
o o
^ 00 .. o <u
v 2 If cr
fd

>>
* 00 •- -a rd
D > O O M .=3 3
ft
C JZ c u
4> "bo 4> u *- l- -r? x;
rd rd 4» +j

£Q a, co < 2 o %1
X
(-» 22 aj
3
cr
Xu «£
c
w .=! x: c
o
-?
c
«*•« +-• +j 4)
(«
4>

Q.
4)
°-.2 a3 u
x:
.2
x
c
«/>
csox: <u
c.2 >> >,
ca
>^ c 00 «o
a) +; 03 rd fd <n
«—^
13 x: j- o
-S 2 U u U O CL
0) *h aj 4) 4) u i> <u
5 '55 4_l -0 T3 0L <u o
fC <d
> M-l fd
^ A3 c 'c "c Q. Q. - i£ u
*- r^ ^ uo UO o
U CO 1 00

< «» 3 «
*j
" ^ +j
u ~ «
? x
c
J- C 60
.

O 01«'S
X 00 3
3"
on on
— >^ *- ^ l~
4) =s
tu X
Ui C
"35 M4) O
MH +->
(J
a c < O
to O
O "2 "S ^
3 > jr
T3
C O
—
J a rd rd o E fd
(-=
cQ 3 fd
< >> •- 13 -M c
4> 00
o (1) (T3 +-•
c
<. i- u rd > UO > ^ 3 «fl
C
O >.
U u T3
u
C "O _ 4) «4-t
O
z fl
x c —c fd
o a
-0 <d
>
+->
u
"O
o O C X 4)
<u
f-»
<u

f0 w ?s,
C J3 g
+-»
c
nn
jr
rd
u
3
4'
+> 0)
<u
ni
c +* >>
3 »->
CO

111 c u
OJ
a xi
4)
rd
c fd
Q.— E <u .£ E <u m .5£ op
4) 4)
>>i >ri <U -3 C C ^ u
C
.2 5 M 00 4> <U 41
J= -0 ^ U >
4> rt .t; o <u .1= <u .t; Sa I
C ^3 x XcdV) C(0 o
^ 4) c
T5
3 ss » =5 £ 45 T3 •»->
+-•
41
</>.£ c
a c
y
rd
rd Ci 4) V) to
C
C O
•—<
*-> 41
0) 10
4> rd x
.3°

> 1-

C fd
h 4>

c
^~
(3 (0

v-
Q.
D.
O 4>-
fd
"3 O
+-*
^
fd

.
UN rd *
cr 4> 'C .2
cs
c • !

OI

a-
2 "3 X3
™*
u
3D V OI

o A 7J
•-+
•*-*

O O
»- •2
rd
<°
r;
cr a. -J U

16
 to
v_
CtJ

<D
Q.
X
to cj
10
(TJ
I- <« oo
c x 2-c c o
«, ) 4» «*>

XC +
- E
X E-2*^ N -C ?
o-i

<D jD
>>
4> W 2
(U
4>
<^ .t: ^ *-
CL X3
X
to
to
4>
i_
O
>
^ <D
E
fl
cr

>>TJ
3 CD
U -
Q
n3
^ (T3

^"oi
00;-
C
£
fO
to
x
•(->

to

XJ
CL *-» 41 " u. <"
2 X > 3 V CD U
£ .£
* i t J 'o
-S <" J3 •—
4> o <f> z.
3 -C <d
+-> c
>a HH J2 2
3U tO
J*
cd s
MH -

(0 -m o t/i eo ooQi ^ 00 00
c u
(0

_^ h- >, o
0) = 1 J-S L. M-l
c
c 4>
3 £ X o
3 ID
u BO., o
1_
CD
•—
4->

h-
5* x to C U *> M (=

c
£ 4)
* S '^ OJ
—
tf-4

(0

u
o J2 .3. '5* 1> fa .2 is
Q.-C i- 3
XX
">
"53
cc
< cr 00 Q. <" <U — S'l
to
-
OJ
DO (0
a;
l«
c 33
r- <u
C TJ -^ >-.
'n X* i_ CD n3
"" CD
1_
u u '> c 3 XI CJC O CD
3 U c U
^£U^
a. :>
CO
° ° i: c EL CD3 +-*
f8
5? CO
l
<+-.
CD 3
r3 3 O XX
a>
E sbU 3 a: oo 00
^ S"
CD
CD
to
«
J=) UH >- f3 £ 2!
(13

_Q . CD > ^ c
c ^
O <2 £ co — - £
to

t/5 u ta j= .-.
X) 2foo
GO C 4>
*- «J Ti .£
c !£! o3

J^ OJ I
L.
CD
+-> u « S £^ "-
> ir
CD
> <0
4>
> 3 CD % a
to 03 i_ 00 I-
O CJ c
ffl (J i.
<
>? 4> 00 u £ 11
u. J. U *j

UJ « £
'n xC -Q ^ "i X • cO
a p ? a. u <D <D
CD3 X £ u u
_) O <0
- .2 rt
u 3 O
cr i- CO
fl
+-•
o3
>>
CQ U- to Qi o to 00 fO 22 3 CD
< O •- 4-
f-
z
<
u
o
u
o
X
CD
c
<D
Q.
^^
"2

° c oo
. o o u

^ *
<0
> r-
.2 .X

Q.
.y
c
fl
O C
E E-i?
BO
E c
i_
(TJ

2 A o -* Xc (0 4_i

Z Q.c __ d
4> -55
I * o -S V o a;
03 r-

2 C 3 CO +->'t*
(75
CO u Z c °
Xto c s° 3
<D
I
I

<o - *
-o
4) 4->
^ (0
CD _c
I s § o gg E n3 "*->
,12
to ^ X
a J E CL CL
u oo^ S ^o
"S >- —>, C
I
t/) 4)
>, O
s ° u -
CO i-

c §.<=*-
CD
.52
y y
C 4- O +- . >» (0 -3
i

<D IS
to *-> x u co

0) o o
CU " x 55
%V
N !

;°. o !
««
O "> U 2 u Silo
o o y c o o
<75 I

I
o 4-1
ru c oo^Cl ,l3 -
_c I I
cu
o O o
?5 _^
^ 4)
u v i; O to ^
a CD * 2 o c r fa 4j
CU r £ J £ -*o
1/5 X 55 5
••to _)
4-> tO

S c0<0
c cf u « c
QO -3 .

.2 x c - E
4->
C cO
'^Um
^O 3
fT3 00 to O
c CD
(J X u 4> +-•
o 3 o
00
.X c c u ^
—— o
x& O — fl -X
to
rO O °
M t .X
I
+-<

c u-If c i

C CL i_ +- 3_ u cO .

to C — .-3
!
£ aj 3 o o O ,- i.5
3 2 >,>,- B °
to ftl -yi
^V5
C (O ^
> ITS
a 00^- 52 ^ o xxiHu o ^
C II o O O ^ —
2 5 3 « '5. 5P «o
/"»

15 2 2
U -7> S 1
C ;r fO *h .b a
-J xx
17
 M 1 ' H

00
c
is
XI
3
OS
to
0)
OJ C
> OJ
«—*
to o
<"
.
OJ XI ato
X)
c
OJ (0
4-. "^ >..

oj
—4 OJ E rj to o
-M o
OJ
C y «j
o £
to

§^ U
fO
CD to
3 to
oo c
o
C O i; o
+->
OJ

00
i
t-» u
. tO
C X> If > g>t5 M l_
_• CCO .63 XI HH
> OJ C 3 OJ
O O c •-
o c
CO
tu &o r ° 3u 00 fO 3 £
£ 5-
^ U to
oj X
X) to '3 UJ
60 «> oo
.

CO
<u c .5 60.£
£ S
.JH(0
XS
x: c c c X5 C c
^3 <u c
> 3
2 c
3
OJ

a a. OJ
> V O
OJ

z >H
0)
fO

2 A
tu
**£ u
<
to
O x:
X>
< — w C
.
to
> OJ 3 OJ

« o 2 1-g O to >^ £
a u do I/) U M x:
tO
.TJ
V5 o
o
to «- . fO
r^ CM
U- a-.
O— > c crj OJ
to U x:
+-»
OJ 'S3
UJ -r-> to o
CA
o o o
CO — jr —
UJ r- XT o 1> A V A V OJ

0*5 c
^ +j OJ 3 to
-J
CO UJ
a, <3
flj
0) U zz zz oo
(0
a.
< O oo a.
•t
OJ
•K
OJ OJ
•V ^
a> * o
<u c IS)
CO 00 </) 5R
of. C o c o </3

Cl. u OJ o OJ o

1-
o
i~
u QJ Q -J c
z a. tO Q (0
x:
< fO
a.
to

u
1— — >
<o
-C OJ
J-
u- tO +j o
c 'C to
Z OJ CL
a
— £ o
lw •-m
Si
fO >^
(A)
o
D V A
£a to
_>.
OJ
Sj
DUo
'c "tO
c
-I£
fO
(0

fO
<?
£ q. .a
OJ

to-+; sz u
oj oj £ M oj t!
S-H
^ £ ir\ u-N
t5
OJ </) ^ Q.
tl
O O •M OJ

^'i3 o o •
O 2-6 S2 O
[Vj i_ -h OJ
.-.
(0
+j o
aa u. oj
-a tO
x:
c 1- CO

M 60
ac ^cO £
•—
c eo*^ C tO
o >
>> OJ
XI oj-g !_ !-
c c O Cl
00 CO
to •^ to "p
(0
'io
CD a o. O O
Q C "aJ >. X)
tO
<->
<u
to tH -a

18
 T3
0)
10 o
u > <3
to
0)
i_ .2
*^ A3

o
a. > .- tt)
<U
E c
o «
<u IO
</>
u X o
<u

= 1
.s ft oj
a •M
z i- to
00
2 00 c
>! c .S > <u
00

>• -c o "tu
< > (fl
I-
BO-2
£
u
CO < oo u
t/J

00
(/)

to
c
X 1 $ 2 -2 p
§ £ -2 .2 * u •-
>
03
a.
<U
C£ O tu 03

J!
-=

UJ c .
U U
> (U !_
j=
< u -o to
O .-
.t:
(j

(^ c M
o E s
to
<U O o ex

00 oo E c
Is 0)
+->
a >,
"3
c o
•3"
o
o gg
•a '^
03
UJ tu >
-J
a. s ^3 03 <U ••-> <u u
CD
U- 10 u, -C C 03

< 2* >
o
«~* >»
M%
-si

03 s-i

z O
£
C £ D cu
C
< "S. o)
'a. e L-

* .S3 2; 03 to «J C *H
tu
c
"fl L. <y
•- a; to
UJ <U

= a.
<u
UJ e
Q. to C
o _ CO
o
CO
O
<u
° 5
<U
0)
U
03 zz E c
oo
z t-
oo
Q.
c <u 1) -O
< <u
to to
<u
I/J
<u
to

u a6 o c
o <u
o
o
c
<U 03 11

uu -j a a u
tU

73
.2 <^
.2 £
•»-• tU
n3 03 i-
a. 00
.—
U
to

to to

03
U
Q «2
a ^
C — i-
c "
n3
r^ to
c
oo > c v +2, O o3
i_ TD 03 °-
'io
to _Q %
<U
D O O (J
.£ JH
LU u
rd 2
(/I 00 u U. O -J 5

19
 I

> •o
<u
10 a;

T3
M T3
03
03
C io O c
re Li L-
00 P
T3 3 to oojy
<L>
to
CO
O o ^§°
o 1- CO
"2 O •
<U
JZ 33 .s
m
I

<u T3
^
BO to
<U
i_ 00 > 60 O > - «J >>^ «
Q- C
| S^
'Lo
£ ""CO c - C
o
U Q£ O
w a; 03
to
<D ti. 00.2 C
a. x 'o3

IS 03
i:
A ?
_
+J
>
t-
00

h- o co u CO
c <u C <v
O >^ +j o
— CO
•-1 > 03 1)
00 oc C c
X •- 03

o .t: <u
lis 3 Q.
to
03 £
U to

Q C < ° u
O
'_ ii to V
+J
C
Z U "3 to 00 03
00
< no <L>

£
<D
E
00 <3J :=?
00
c
t:
c 4= flj 2 "(T3
to .£ Jg
03 03 00
00 >
Q ^
a. ^ o3 0)

Z .3 —o oC 03
a; <+h
o <U
to
to
•—
_
i

< (0
-Q
U- u .c o rd L.
03 <ii O
O D O > •3
> U 03 u
> 03
L* B0
O
u
< 00
.

a i^ c
J2
3 CO

z£- 03

^^ E
to
C
Q.
-O «3
c

00
<
fr) - c hO
OJ 03

v£5
"(3
t-
00
°
.
00
.s
c 2
••

co
03

"Si
^.

I « fe
00
3
c
03
1_
O £ o
°* OJ
>
^§ V V A '-^i

CD
°0^ 00
>^ > ^" ' 3 _:
< o
-O.
c <t)
a. .t:

£ o < C <u
<u <u
03
a; *lo <y
to
to

t"O
*
* 3 o «j cr
l/l

" C ^
O c
fl)

_o 7 E
OL Z o
O El. TJ
00
to
3 603
C i_
_
T3

O ^ (j 03

-o.i2 a; 03
a£ _ T3 00 X
a >—
O
1—

E O.J2
<U
—
rt

3
< z to
>^
y 5 rd ^ "f3

E z C
z
*
* ac
C 03
j:
03

a <D ! ITS c U "rd

- s pg o o
U -3 N
<v
y
o fN o •
o c
(N
A
OA oi 1

Si S
to 3^
03

fN o 03
u
t^
O 00 c to C

— "^ 4-> t- to
C
o
E .. o — o 03
u c ° <u u 00
o O to > '+J
•- c 03
: to
'c 03 03 00
oc — in >, -m
03
>
c
T3
§ t2 "3 3
!
C c o >.§
> to V»
03 —
03 "o .

a 03 o cO
o C <u
c
\
i_
00
»->
r- 03 <U N ^ .-
00 E 'a a CO
CD
<D
to 3 O ' O
'to
OJ
> "O L.
T3 >. .2 ii
^ -a -3 o CL

c 03
u c r3
O OJ
3 a>
c"
E c c E
03 03 o
o 00 u E > *
;7"
U-
03
to
03
to
03
to u

20
2.3.2 Methods of Tunneling

Recent developments indicate a trend toward use of shields and excavating

machines. The shield is basically a steel cylinder which is jacked ahead by thrusting
against the in-place liner. This shield provides temporary support of the soil and allows
excavation to proceed at the tunnel face. In the tail of the shield, liner segments are
erected in preparation for the shield advance. Details of shield design can be important
to construction performance. It is common to provide an overhanging hood at the front
of the shield for protection of personnel working at the face and to allow an inclined
face, which is more stable than a vertical face. The cutting edge at the front of the
shield is often equipped with a relieving bar or bead to reduce friction and to allow for
easier steering. A few tunnels currently are being built using shields with articulated
joints at two or more locations separating the hood and cutting edge, the central part
(containing jacks and excavating equipment), and the tail, which trails behind. This
allows greater ease in turning and steering without excessive ground loss. Many types
of excavating tools are available, including hand-held spades and clay knives, power
spades or knives, hoe type excavators, and rotating and oscillating spokes equipped with
teeth of various kinds. A new type of shield, the slurry mole, maintains a bentonite
slurry under pressure at the face. Soil cuttings from the rotating excavators drop into
the slurry and the soil-slurry mixture is pumped out.

The liner segments are often completely assembled within the tail of the shield.
This construction procedure leaves a void between the soil and liner after shield
advance, which is filled by gravel and/or grout. Alternatively, the liner may be erected,
but not tied together, and expanded against the soil after shield advance. The lining
may or may not be bolted, and varying requirements as to water tightness may impose
widely different design and construction criteria.

The need to advance a tunnel through the mixed face condition, a transitional
zone of weathering, fill materials, or bouldery talus slopes presents added difficulties
during construction. The methods of excavation and support used are complicated in
materials such as these since both soft ground and rock must be penetrated while the
stability of the opening, which is usually controlled by the weakest material present, is
maintained. The associated problems are amplified when tunneling through zones of
weathering where the transitions from rock to soft ground, and vice versa, may be
irregular and inconsistent.

Some form of shield tunneling is preferable where ground control is of a critical

nature. But, since the shield tunneling method is not readily adaptable to two or more
distinctly different types of materials, the work is usually carried out by hand mining.
Where drilling and blasting is required, the utmost care must be taken to stabilize the
soft ground present in and above the working face. It is preferable to have excavated
and supported the soft ground several feet ahead of the rock to be removed by blasting.
Boulders can be removed by breaking them up with hydraulic splitters and mucking with
normal soft ground procedures. Critical ground losses can occur when boulders are
encountered which are only partially within the tunnel profile. Unless some method of
supporting the irregular opening left by removal of the boulder is provided, large ground
settlements can develop.

Water can have severe consequences when encountered in a mixed face tunnel.
Seepage pressures developed by groundwater flow toward the tunnel face along the
soil/rock interface can cause face instability.

21
 '

A very high percentage (more than half) of all mixed face tunnels suffer
uncontrolled loss of ground outside the tunnel profile. It is not infrequent that these
losses are so extensive that "chimneys" develop to the ground surface. It is of utmost
importance that owners, designers, and contractors be aware of the inherent problems
associated with tunneling in such random materials so that precautions are adopted to
protect adjacent and overlying structures and utilities from potential damage.

Special tunneling techniques, if properly applied, can ease the problems involved
in tunneling through random soils. Spiling, grouting, dewatering, shotcrete initial
support, and compressed air have all been used but must be carefully selected for
application on a case by case basis.

Since different types of mining procedures, lining construction, and material

handling operations are involved in one tunnel face, the rate of advance for these
conditions may be much lower than those of uniform ground conditions. In the
subsurface exploration stage, the soil/rock interface should be identified and described
in detail if tunneling in the mixed face condition or the transition zone in residual
materials is anticipated.

2.4 DISPLACEMENT AROUND SOFT GROUND TUNNELS

A major concern in tunneling through urban environments is the possibility of
subsidence of the ground surface along the path of the tunneling operations, and the
resulting damage to structures and utilities. Settlements result from ground loss, liner
deflection, re-densification of the ground with time, dewatering and permanent
lowering of the groundwater level. In general, for shield driven tunnels in competent
soils, very little movement occurs at the tunnel face. Most of the movement develops
over the shield and at the tail.

The potential volume of lost ground during tunnel advance is largely controlled
by soil properties and the suitability of the construction method for the range of soil
and groundwater conditions to be encountered in the tunnel. Cording and Hansmire
(1975) described the influence of soil properties on loss of ground for four soil
conditions:
HZ - P
(1) Stiff to soft saturated clay: The stability ratio ( — ^ ) provides a

means of estimating the difficulty during e'xcavation of a tunnel, and the

potential seriousness of ground movement ( HZ is the vertical overburden
pressure at the axis of the tunnel; P is the compressed air pressure, if
any; and S is the undrained shear strength of the clay). Usually, for a
stability ratio less than 4, settlements can be small if good construction
techniques are maintained at the heading.

(2) Non-swelling stiff to hard fissured clay: Although it is often considered

that tunnels in hard clay will not develop significant ground losses,
significant ground losses have been observed to develop and propagate to
the ground surface. This may be due to overexcavation, raveling above
the crown, fractures, or slickensided, curvilinear sheared surfaces. Thus,
if an appropriate construction procedure (shield tunneling, liner expansion,

and tail grouting) is utilized, settlement can be negligible in this type of

clay soil.
22
 (3) Cohesionless granular soils: Saturated sands and gravels overlying low
permeability zones will tend to flow into the tunnel and develop large
volume losses ahead of the tunnel and slumps to the ground surface if the
groundwater is not properly controlled. Unless dewatering is carried out
with closely spaced wells, areas with several feet of water in the sand and
gravel above the low permeability zone may remain. When tunnel
headings are advanced into such situations, the volume of lost ground
tends to be large, and if at any time the face cannot be properly
controlled, the sand may flow and a sinkhole may form. Depending on the
actual surrounding conditions (depth of groundwater table, permeability,
existing utilities, etc.), dewatering, compressed air, and/or chemical
grouting techniques may be necessary prior to the advance of the tunnel
heading.

(4) Granular cohesive soils: Slightly cohesive-granular materials, in general,

will not develop large displacements in the face of tunnels without
groundwater flow into the face. Most of the ground loss will occur over
the shield and behind the tail. These materials tend to move immediately
into any voids over the shield, rapidly filling voids over the tail.
Movements occur with shoving of the shield. In order to minimize the
movement of the ground behind the tail, the liner should be expanded
after each push of the shield. However, the expansion is not capable of
fully recovering any volume that previously has been lost.

Based on five case histories of WMATA

tunnels, Clough, et al. (1978), reported
that for the chemically grouted tunnel sections, ground movements were generally small
(less than 2 in.), and in no case did serious ground runs occur. Thus, the chemical
grouting technique can be used as an economical alternative to conventional
underpinning. Recent case histories (Baker, 1978; Gularte, 1979) also reported that
undesirable surface and subsurface settlements can partially be eliminated during
tunneling using compaction grouting techniques.

2.5 TUNNEL LINING SYSTEMS IN SOFT GROUND

Tunnels in soft ground usually are completely lined to control the ground during
and after excavation. There are four basic types of permanent support systems
currently utilized. They are: cast-in-place concrete liners, precast concrete segments,
fabricated steel liner plates, and cast iron liner plates. There is no generally accepted
rule for the choice between these liners. However, there is a increasing trend toward
the use of flexible liner segments rather than rigid liners (cast-in-place concrete). In
the following sections the four types of liner systems will be discussed briefly.

2.5.1 Cast-in-Place Concrete Liners

The cast-in-place concrete liner is a traditional lining system for soft ground
tunnels. the majority of cases, this type of lining system is associated with the
In
temporary steel rib and wood lagging support system. Usually, the concrete is poured a
period of time after the temporary liner is installed, i.e., the temporary liner
experiences some stress redistribution before the concrete is placed. Therefore,
traditional methods, such as Hewett and Johannesson (1922), for calculating the
controlling moment, thrust, and shear should be modified in accordance with field

23
measurements of stress and strain in cast-in-place liners for use in designing future
linings for similar conditions.

Problems have arisen in some cases when unreinforced concrete liners have been
used in non-cohesive fine-grained soils. If shrinkage cracks develop which are
approximately three times the particle diameter, the soil can run (dry) or flow
(saturated) into the tunnel. This can lead to surface subsidence as well as lining failure.
This problem is especially severe in water tunnels with fluctuating flows where the pore
pressures in the soils adjacent to the cracks will be alternately raised and released.

2.5.2 Fabricated Steel Liner Plates

Fabricated steel liner plates are usually designed and utilized as both temporary
and permanent liner systems. These systems have the following advantages:

1. Maximum support capacity per unit length with minimum weight of steel.

2. Standard plate designs available for all shapes of tunnels.

3. Predictable strength and fire resistance.

4. Continuous support during the critical mining phase.

5. Easy to store, handle, and erect whether the tunnel is straight, curved,
circular, elliptical or horseshoe in shape.

6. Gasketed plates that seal joints.

One disadvantage of steel liner plates is their rough interior surface. This
surface inhibits the flow of ventilation air and/or water.

There are various methods for determining the required strength of the liner
system. These methods generally consider the type of soil, the overburden depth, the
size of the tunnel, level of groundwater, superimposed loadings, overconsolidation ratio,
the coefficient of subgrade reaction, etc.

When fabricated steel lining systems are used in shield driven tunnels, stiffeners
welded into the liner plates are often needed to resist the thrust of the jacks.

2.5.3 Cast Iron Liner Plates

Cast iron liner plates are difficult to handle (more brittle and heavier than steel
for the same required stress); however, they can be cast into any convenient shape and
no stiffener is required. Cast iron liners have not been used frequently in the United
States in recent years. Therefore, manufacturers for this item are not readily available
which may make their cost prohibitive with respect to the other liners discussed.

The loading analysis of the cast iron liner plates is essentially the same as for
any segmental liner, except for the different material properties.

24
2.5.4 Precast Concrete Segments

Birkmyer (1975) developed three new precast concrete lining systems based on
existing precast concrete lining systems in Europe, Japan, and the Soviet Union. These
are (1) Composite System, which incorporates a steel perimeter angle (Figure 5); (2)
Steel Pocket System, which uses steel face plates anchored in the concrete for
transmitting the bolt forces (Figure 6 ); and (3) Through Bolt System, where bolts
passing through the segments tie the segments and the rings together continuously
(Figure 7). A cost analysis between the liner segments designed by Birkmyer (1975),
an existing precast concrete liner segments, and two fabricated steel liner plates are
compared in Table 9 for firm ground conditions. According to the data presented, a
considerable saving in lining manufacturing costs can result from the use of precast
concrete lining systems. An indication of the tremendous variety of detailed lining
designs can be derived from Craig and Muir Wood (1978) in their review of tunnel linings
used in the United Kingdom.

2.6 RECENTLY DEVELOPED TUNNEL LINER DESIGN METHODS

By using continuum mechanics theories and numerical analysis techniques,
quantitative methods of classifying the stiffness of a tunnel liner in terms of both the
structural properties of the liner and the stress-strain characteristics of the surrounding
soil have been developed (Peck, et al., 1972; Paul, et al., 1974). For example, a tunnel
liner may be categorized as a rigid liner with respect to a soft clay medium, while the
same liner may be classified as flexible liner in a hard residual soil or rock.

The stiffness of a tunnel liner-soil system is for convenience, considered to be

composed of two independent modes. The first is external stiffness (the compressibility
ratio), which is a measure of the equal all-around uniform pressure necessary to cause a
unit diameter strain of the liner with no change in shape. The second is flexible
stiffness (flexibility ratio), which is a measure of the magnitude of the nonuniform
pressure necessary to cause a unit diameter strain which results in a change in shape or
an ellipticing of the liner. Hoeg (1969) has developed relationships for these two ratios.

E
m
(U
C =
v
m )(l-2 v m )
-(2-3)
Ej,t 1

m
F = m (2-4)
6 Eg, I
i 1

2
(1- v, ) R3

25
 m
at
in
>•

= 2:

a°
U UJ
K UJ
g<n
S3 to
1^
z* 0>
^ Q
n *

m
sit
<K
u.
ui

UJ
>-
S
i£
o:
< m
< v—
z o
o z
O
UJ
2
co _j

UJ
h-
UJ
tr
o
2
O
o
h-
co
<
o
UJ
q:
Q_

2
UJ
\ f-
po
i>-
<T)

UJ
H
co
CD o
a.
00
z 2
o o
o
1-
o
UJ
CO
lO'

UJ
o:
3
CD

26
 VT

CO
n y
L "=[ m
I
s -

5
J a:
UJ

c MS
In ^:
or
Q. 00
»-
— 2 - ui z
LU
/I 5
w s
5 -«. O
ui
i > CO _!
^ tK'
UJ
h-
e
Ixl

I a:
o
z
uyo o
o
h-

& Irt <

o
UJ
(r
a.

J iiT
;ft
•-.v.-
LU

>

UJ

o
o
Q.
_J
UJ
UJ
\-
(f)

CD

UJ
or
Z>
CD

27
 (A
(C
UJ
>-

HH u< K

J s
y uj
CD I w
P (A
«3
L -«N UJ

t:
t
o
<-«»
in

J 0>

u. < ec
or
UJ
^^-^^
-r* 3 z
1
f >-
< <
a.
< *:
fe t- or
Z »7
Z
ui
m
U o
o
ui
UJ

< V CO

5 '

i < -
c
LU
f-
Si LU
<8 cr
o
z:
m o
ec

>-
o
b
en
<
o

jap
Ll)
a:
a.

>-

O
z m
g x
e>
o
UJ
CO o
a:
% x
O
tr
o
_i
UJ
Z
Z
UJ
a:

28
 —

< *
*
Z rsj

o
Q ^
z <r

o s a
u _i
UJ
UJ Z
*£
Q ^
^ 5
L?
<*
Z i

C "-^ 1

Q «/»

O
a r-
<
'_) _j 1

C
<
li.

E E3 c
z <
rsj
!

UJ
Z
z u [/*
-
1
Psj IM
UN (SI
o
0^
un
.3-
o
ITS
o
3~
^ fN
o
1
f*-
o*
«^-
—
1

/~ -e •a- ir*
ro r^ f* 1
a-
:l
1

H >
r—
O l- ^ 1

?^a.
~ ~* <
^_
? u CM vO o 00 O u^ -"
H^ „ INI OC INJ INI
I

z r^ i
Ct UN <?
— c
— .3- 00 4* r^ 0^ ^j ^.
|- * r^
Ok 1j
i

1
r*» ^*- ij- ^*

On o- 1

UJ i* S-
00
vj
i**
in ^
i^
jj-
INI
INI
00
a-
O
IN f
(Nl
00 ^>
a: INI UN UN ^ UN \r~
UJ
CD a. E 22 \

< j* UJ
H UN o
UJ SS _ <v 00
f*%
— o
— »c tN UN r»^ o r»> r*>

<w
ci C* c?- ^ f> -» U^ UN v£ ^> j--

g* UN O C
-i 2 1

->
w
O I— UJ vr
O
a i/i
<
—
h-
1
l/"
_
£+
1
rsj
*?"
00
un
00
a-
(Nl
CT"
u^
^
rr*

<N
tN
l-N
r<* O
fN
^J
(N.
IN
<NI
IN
IN
f\J
Nv
^N.
u
UJ
D a.
ci "2
Q . r>i oc 00 ivj 00 00 INJ c 1^ IN' <"s;

/5
*
UN
UT<
a-
So
"~ o
O0 oc
IN
00
1

O ir
< i

UJ U
OS
<
tt
ID < ..
r** o u^ IN o «> o ^ ?• DO
f- ^ .a- !*» CM 00 r^ o 00
.

UN rN
UN UN
u •3- l/N

<
Li. L
D D
Z y:
< oc
<
1-
5 UJ
1/5

Q i- <
uj 5= z
u 2 < ir.
O < ct s
_i UJ u <c
< UJ
UJ
a Q.
U UJ
s r>uj
U UJ _j in
a Z _3 UJ o->

UJ
Q-
LU
OS
U
U
a.
UJ
UJ

un
Qi
<
UJ
I
<
c
UJ
O
z n
dQL
2H.
_l
UJ

z
<
q
<
o
5
l-UJ
in (j
— UJ

2 2 U s UJ
1-
z <Z v. to C
O UJ < > 2 o o < os
u 2 O u _1 u U *

29
where:

C = Compressibility Ratio,

F = Flexibility Ratio,

E , E^ = Modulus of elasticity of the medium and the liner, respectively,

v
m»
v£ = Poisson's ratio of the medium and the liner, respectively,

R, t = Radius and effective thickness of the liner, respectively, and

1^ = Effective moment of inertia of the liner cross section per

unit length.

Paul, et al. (1974), indicated that the Poisson's ratio of the medium has a pronounced
effect on the compressibility ratio but not on the flexibility ratio, whereas the
Poission's ratio of the liner has negligible effect on either ratio.

2.6.1 Closed Form Solutions

The basic assumptions for the analytical theories by Peck, et al. (1972), and Paul,
et al. (1974), are:

(1) The medium is homogeneous, isotropic, and linear elastic.

(2) Tunnel liner is circular and deeply buried (H/D > 3.0).

(3) The medium with the liner is loaded by external pressures as shown in
Figure 8.

(4) The liner is placed into the opening without disturbing the medium; the
medium and the liner are unstressed before any loads are applied.

The slippage condition at the liner-medium interface, the coefficient of medium

reaction at rest (K ), the compressibility ratio, and the flexibility ratio are specially
considered and plotted against moment, thrust, interfacial shear stress, and diameter
change. The main findings and some typical plots are discussed in the following
paragraphs.

The slippage condition has been found to have little influence on the moment and
diameter change. However, the thrust coefficient is strongly affected by the condition
at the interface and K as shown in Figure 9.

The moment coefficient is primarily a function of flexibility ratio and (K ), as

shown in Figure 10. For flexibility ratios greater than about 10, the liner can be said
to behave flexibly (moments in the liner are not significant) with respect to the
medium.

Plots of the thrust coefficient as functions of flexibility and compressibility

ratios are shown in Figures 9 and 11, respectively. The plots indicate that the
thrust coefficient is insensitive to the flexibility ratio, especially for high flexibilities.
However, the thrust coefficient is strongly affected by slippage conditions.

30
 « K /H

FIGURE 8. LOADING CONDITIONS USED IN THE CLOSED FORM

SOLUTION (PAUL, ET AL, 1974 PECK, ET AL., 1972)
,•

31
 FULL SLIPPAGE ——
- K =0.5
K =2.0
2.8
NO SLIPPAGE K =0.5
vm 0.4
=

C =0.4

a: 2.4
x

2.0
UJ
\
o CROWN
li_
Li_
LU ^SPRINGLINE
O
O /
/
in /
=>
q: .2
x I

I
SPRINGLINE
«B^• • M• • I • •

SPRINGLINE
0.8 -
CROWN

CROWN
0.4-

20 30 40 50
FLEXIBILITY RATIO

FIGURE 9. VARIATION OF THRUST COEFFICIENT WITH FLEXIBLE

RATIO PAUL, ET AL., 1974; PECK, ET AL., 1972)
(

32
 0.18 -
1 1 1 1 1

I
FULL SLIPPAGE
K - 0.5
0.16
|
K = 2.0
Vm = 0.4
j

0.14 - -

cv«
0.12
cc
X

2 QI0 W

UJ
o 0.08
u_
Ll_
UJ
O
o
I

_ \
-
0.06

UJ

o 0.04-

0.02 -

1 1 1 1 1

20 40 60 80 100 120

FLEXIBILITY RATIO

FIGURE 10. VARIATION OF MOMENT COEFFICIENT WITH FLEXIBILITY

RATIO (PECK, ETAL, 1972)

33
 FULL SLIPPAGE K =0.5
K =2.0
.8 NO SLIPPAGE K =0.5
v m =0.4
C = CROWN
S = SPRINGLINE
1.6

1.4

UJ
o
S£ 1.0
u_
Ll,
UJ
o
o
(S)
0.8

X
0.6

F=20
F = 20
0.4 -

F = 20
0.2 - — F= 2

2 3 4

COMPRESSIBILITY RATIO

FIGURE II. VARIATION OF THRUST COEFFICIENT WITH COMPRESSIBIL-

ITY RATIO (PAUL, ET AL, 1974,- PECK, ET AL, 1972)

34
 Figure 12 indicates that the maximum interfacial shear stress coefficient is
constant for ali flexibility ratios except for very low flexibilities. For a flexibility ratio
greater than 5, magnitude of the maximum shear stress can be approximated by (1-
K ) ? H. It should be noted that interfacial shear stress should not exceed the shear
•

strength of the medium in the no slippage condition.

The variation of the liner diameter change (after correction for free-field
deformation) with flexibility ratio and K is presented in Figure 13. Where M is the
constrained modulus of the medium surrounding the liner,

"" ">
E
™ (2-5)
MC -

«*«J«-2vJ
Since the diameter change can be determined by the moment in the liner, while the
moment is almost the same for both full slippage and nonslippage conditions, the
diameter change is insensitive to the slippage conditions. However, the diameter
changes are functions of flexibility ratio (Equation 2-4) and K The diameter changes
.

approach a constant value when the flexibility ratio exceeds 10. This would indicate
that for flexibility ratios greater than 10, the deformations are primarily governed by
the stiffness of the surrounding soil.

2.6.2 Discrete Method Solutions

In order to determine the effect of shallow depths of cover on various design

parameters for tunnels, Peck, et al. (1972), developed finite-element solutions for
different depths of burial, lining stiffnesses, and initial coefficients of earth pressure at
rest. Figure 14 presents the dimensionless plots for these parameters. The range of
these parameters was selected to reflect actual tunneling situations. The basic
assumptions are the same, except that the deeply buried (H/D > 3.0) item has been
removed, and only the full slippage interface condition is considered.

Figure 14a, only the maximum thrust coefficients governing the design are
In
shown. this figure, the maximum thrust coefficient is relatively more sensitive to
From
the K value than the flexibility and compressibility ratios. Referring back to Figure
11, note that an approximate expression for the thrust in a tunnel liner having a
flexibility ratio greater than 10 can be adopted as follows (Peck, et al., 1972):

= 4 (1 + K Ml.2-0.2C)-- (2-6)
2HR 2
v
o'

Figure 14b shows the dimensionless moment in the liner versus the dimensionless
depth of burial. For K equal to 0.5, the moment coefficient for all cases is less than
1%. For K equal to 2.0, although the moment coefficient is sensitive to the
flexibility of the liner, in all cases the values are below 596. This value is considerably
lower than the moment coefficient of 25% based on the hypothetical loads for a rigid
liner design. The benefit which can be derived from using a flexible liner is clearly
shown in Figure 14b.

35
 20 40 60 80
FLEXIBILITY RATIO

FIGURE 12. VARIATION OF MAXIMUM INTERFACIAL SHEAR STRESS

COEFFICIENT WITH FLEXIBILITY RATIO
(PAUL, ET AL, 1974)

36
 .'•.

JGHv
-
>.

4.0 1 1 1 1 1

FULL SLIPPAGE
m -0.4
tf K - 0.5
C=0.4 K o=2.0
Id
(Z
O
— " - vFrticTaT
/
2.0 -
"/
/
o
8 1.0 L
/
~~ HORIZONTAL

e>
z
<
X
o
\ VERTICAL
Id 1.0
h-
Ld
2 HORIZONTAL
< UJ
CO 2.0
<
LU

o
III
Q 3.0 — _

4.0
i i i i
1

20 40 60 80 00 120
FLEXIBILITY RATIO

FIGURE 13. VARIATION OF DIAMETER CHANGE WITH FLEXIBLE

RATIO (PECK, ETAL., 1972)

37
 FULL SLIPPAGE CASE
K =0.5
cc
K =2.0
X C F
a SPRINGLINE
4.0 1 0.57 5.3
(a) 2 0.39 5.0 o INVERT
3 0.30 2.3 A HORIZONTAL
z °- ^--.
3
3.0- a. • VERTICAL
UJ
o o^ 2" O
u.
u.
— -Q-
O
UJ 2.0
o
o
1.0
co
Z> $S
cc
X
0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0 2.4 2.8 3.2 3.6

C F
^ 0.05 1 0.57 15.3
x (b)
2 0.39 5.0
a. ^^3 3 0.30 2.3
^ 0.04 —
—
0.03 (X
UJ
o -o—

Hi
002
o
o
0.0 3:
UJ

O
0.4 0.8 1.2 .6 2.0 2.4 2.8 3.2 3.6

C = 0.57
2.0 (c) F = I5.3
UI •>

<
1.0 _UI
ce
o
UJ z
o
< UJ
X CO
o <
ce UI
ui
1.0 ce
o
UJ UJ
Q
< o n 1
i i i i i i
1 1

0.4 0.8 .2 .6 2.0 2.4 2.8 3.2 3.6

H/D
FIGURE 14. VARIATION OF THRUST AND MOMENT COEFFICIENT AND
DIAMETER CHANGE WITH DEPTH OF BURIAL
(PECK, ET AL., 1972)
38
 Diameter change data are presented in Figure 14c. For K equal to 0.5, the
largest coefficient of diameter change is 0.75. Based on calculated data (not plotted),
the maximum dimensionless deflection is about 1.0, for K = 0.5 and F = 10. Diameter
q
change depends largely on the moment in the liner which in turn depends mainly on the
factor (1-K ). Thus, a simplified approximate equation can be adapted for F> 10, as
follows:

1_K
AD _
1H o
-(2-7)
D Mc 0.5

Ifa value of Young's modulus (E) equal to 300 x Q (unconfined compressive strength)
and M (constrained modulus) equal to 5/3 x E are assumed, the above equation can be
reduced to:

i_K
I
o
-x (2-8)
D " 500 Qu °- 5

Thus, for an overload factor equal to 5, the diameter change should be about 1%, which
has been confirmed by field observations for K close to 0.5. Therefore, this equation
can be useful in tunnel design practice, especially for K greater than 1.0.

In order to simulate the actual construction conditions, Paul, et al. (1974),

investigated two loading conditions by means of finite-element techniques— excavation
loading and gravity loading—as shown in Figure 15. For both cases elastic solutions
with no interface slippage have been applied. The excavation loading would, in
principle, be developed if the lining could be inserted into the medium without strain or
deformation and the medium inside the lining then excavated. This condition can be
approximated in practice on tunnel liners constructed by advancing a series of adjacent
drifts around the perimeter of the proposed tunnel, backfilling each with concrete, and
then excavating the material inside the completed ring. This type of construction
technique might be used for large diameter tunnels driven through weak materials that
would not tolerate conventional full-face or heading and bench driving methods. Since
the deformation and disturbance of the surrounding medium are small, it is conservative
to assume that the full in situ stress condition acts on the completed liner.

The gravity loading occurs when the tunnel is excavated and deformations due to
this excavation take place before the liner is advanced. Once the liner is placed, time-
dependent deformations of medium induced forces and deformations in the liner. In the
absence of such a nonlinear and time-dependent computer program, an estimate of the
forces and deformations in the liner may be obtained by assuming that only the medium
above the opening actively exerts pressures on the liner due to the force of gravity. An
entire column of soil having a width equal to the diameter of the tunnel is applied to the
liner. Interaction of the liner and the medium is initiated by this vertical gravity load.
As the springlines are forced out against the medium lateral loads are mobilized. The
solution for this loading condition, which is independent of the coefficient of earth
pressure at rest, gives the liner deformation and forces directly.

Similar to those plots illustrated in Figure 14, coefficients for thrust, moment,
transverse shear, and diameter change can be plotted, and a qualitative assessment is
provided in the report by Paul, et al. (1974). Typical distributions of liner thrust,
moment, and transverse shear in the circumferential direction for three loading

39
 a. ACTUAL CONDITION b. USED IN SOLUTION

EXCAVATION LOADING

SURFACE

GRAVITY
LOAD

a. ACTUAL CONDITION b. USED IN SOLUTION

GRAVITY LOADING

FIGURE 15. ASSUMED LOADING CONDITIONS (PAUL, ET AL, 1974)

40
conditions are given in Figure 16. The loading distributions indicate that the
maximum loads occur at different locations in the liner for different loading conditions.
The value of the maximum loads also depends on the depth of cover. The loading
distributions presented in Figure 16 are only valid for liners which are installed with
intimate contact, no slippage, between the surrounding medium and the entire
perimeter of the liner.

The longitudinal effects along the tunnel also are investigated (Paul, et al., 1974)
by a two-dimensional axisymmetric finite element technique with the assumption
of K = 1.0. The elastic displacements of an unlined tunnel due to excavation are
presented in Figure 17. According to this figure, approximately 50% of the elastic
deformation due to excavation occurs within a distance of one-fourth the tunnel radius,
and almost all the elastic deformation has occurred at a distance of 1.5 diameters
behind the tunnel face. For shield driven tunnels in soft ground, the liners usually are
installed at the tail of the shield approximately two radii away from the tunnel face.
Since most of the elastic deformation occurs before the liner can be installed, only the
gravity loading condition can realistically be applied in this situation. The time effects
(i.e., creep) on the medium-liner interaction are not considered in this investigation.
Therefore, the use of these developments must be combined with considerable
engineering judgment.

Along the same line of development, using finite-element techniques, Ranken, et

al. (1978),investigated the medium-liner interaction for three loading conditions
(excavation loading, localized gravity loading, and overpressure loading due to the
weight of new surface structures or the pressure applied at the ground surface by a
nuclear blast) as well as two construction sequences (advancement of the tunnel and
parallel tunnels). The mathematical details of Ranken's study are beyond the scope of
this report and will not be discussed.

2.6.3 Interactive Solution

A three-step, simplified, design oriented analysis of the loads in a tunnel liner

has been developed (Schwartz and Einstein, 1980). The simplified method focuses on the
essential elements of a very complicated physical phenomena in order to isolate the few
major factors that have an overriding influence on the support loads. Major factors
explicitly considered are: The relative stiffness of the support and the ground mass, the
spatial lag or delay of support construction behind the tunnel face, and the yielding of
the ground mass as its shear strength is exceeded. The analysis was developed mainly
for fully supported circular tunnels in ground that is, or can be, treated as time-
independent. Further, it is assumed the tunnel will be driven full-face in free air at a
depth greater than two tunnel diameters.

The steps taken in the analysis are as follows:

Step 1 Relative Stiffness

Closed form solutions which relate the relative support stiffnesses to the tunnel
support loads have been developed. The basic assumptions are: plane strain,
simultaneous excavation and support of the tunnel, and elastic behavior of the ground
and support. The Step 1 analysis requires knowledge of the elastic constants for the

41
 T/ X HR

M/r HR
C = 0.57
F = 15.3
H/D = 3.7
vm = 0.4

SCALE'
.000
T/yHR:
S/yHR: 2^00
M/7 HR2:^°
CLOSED FORM SOLUTION
EXTERNAL LOADING, K =0.5

T/r HR

M/yHR

FINITE ELEMENT SOLUTION FINITE ELEMENT SOLUTION

EXCAVATION LOADING, K = 0.5 GRAVITY LOADING

FIGURE 16. DISTRIBUTION OF FORCES AROUND THE LINER FOR

VARIOUS SOLUTIONS (PAUL, ET AL., 1974)

42
 g
1
o
X
UJ

UJ

UJ

UJ
o
<
_l
Q_
(/)

Q
U
h~
cr DC CC QC cr <n
o GO <£> * CVJ
<
_j
UJ
u.
o
z.
o
h- ,^
30Vd
< «-
cr

>
Wd _j J
<
7*
<
d I—
O Ml
3
h-
_l
C!> -)
2*
<
M CL

UJ
cr
3
dS < o
u.

43
ground and supports, geometry and properties of the supports, and in situ stress field.
The analysis considers both full-slip and no-slip interaction at the ground lining
interface and yields the thrusts, bending moments, and displacements in the ground
support at any point around the circumference of the tunnel.

Step 2 Support Delay

A support delay factor ( A ) has been incorporated into the analysis to account
for the usual decrease in load with delayed support installation. The major input is the
normalized support delay length (L ,/R) which is the ratio of the distance from the
heading to the center of the first effective support to the tunnel radius. The
relationship assuming complete support of the ground at L is: .

X
d = 0.98 - 0.57 (L /R)
d
— (2-9)

for K = 1

0.15 < L /R < 1.5

d

If there are additional movements due to incomplete support at L . they must be added.

L u *

A
d = 0.98-0.57 (-$-)-
.

<— > (2-10)

where

u '
= additional presupport movement

u. = total elastic radial displacement

Note: The support delay factor ( * ,) must lie between zero and one.

Step 3 Ground Yielding

A ground yield factor ( y ) was developed to represent the increase in load on

tunnel supports due to ground yield:

p*
X
y
= ^ „__. _ _ — „_ — (2-11)
P ,

The term P* is the support pressure in the yielding case which takes into account the
effects of both support delay and ground yielding, where P is the equilibrium support 1

pressure in the elastic ground case, reduced for the effect of support delay. The input
for this step includes that of steps 1 and 2 as well as strength parameters for the
ground.

The final solution will then combine each of the three steps such as for the
support thrust (T* ).
 X X _ (2-12)
T* = .
T
y d

where

T is from Step 1.

2.6.3.1 Comparison with Peck, et al. (1972)

A limited comparison was made between the design approach presented at the
1972 Rapid Excavation and Tunneling Conference by Peck, et al. (1972) and the
approach by Schwartz and Einstein (1980). The two parameters varied were the
Poisson's ratio (0 to 0.4) and the coefficient of lateral earth pressure (0.5 and 2.0) of the
ground. For the aforementioned comparison, the following values of input parameters
were assumed:

E = 4,000,000 psf

R = 10 ft

v = v = 0.25
s I

E = E. = 4,176,000,000 psf
S As

A = 10.27 sq in. = 0.0713 sq ft

t = 0.85 in. = 0.0708 ft

I =32.16 in.* = 0.00155 ft*

s

K = K = 0.5 and 2.0

o
v = 0.00, 0.10, 0.25 and 0.40

Figures
18 and 19 present comparisons of the thrust coefficients and moment
coefficients,respectively, for the design approaches of Peck, et al. (1972), and
Schwartz and Einstein (1980). These limited comparisons show that the design
approaches of Peck, et al. tend to produce larger thrusts and moments in the liner than
the Schwartz and Einstein method. However, it should be noted that the validity of the
Schwartz and Einstein design approach needs further field verification.

2.7 GEOTECHNICAL PARAMETERS FOR TUNNELING IN SOFT GROUND

2.7.1 General

Tunnel design and construction are intimately related. In the process of

designing the tunnel, the designer must take into consideration the various methods by
which the tunnel might be constructed. Only by doing so can the tunnel be constructed
in a safe and economical manner.

45
 - PECK, ET AL. (1972)
— EINSTEIN AND SCHWARTZ (1980)

\QC

UJ
o
u.

UJ
o
o

CZ
K= 0.5
X

10
6

—r~ V
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

POISSON'S RATIO ( V)

FIGURE 18. COMPARISON OF CROWN THRUST COEFFICIENTS

46
 PECK, ET AL.0972)
a
EINSTEIN AND SCHWARTZ (1980)

O
6
K = 2.i

00

5
CM
a: O
Q_
o
o
h-
z
LJ K = 2.0
O (0
o
U. o
UJ
d
o
o
^— — __K=0.5
z o
UJ o
2 o
o K
2 = 0.5

CM
o
o

—r~ -U,-'-

0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

FIGURE 19. COMPARISON OF MOMENT COEFFICIENT

47
 In subsequent subsections of this report, the impact of geotechnical parameters
on design and construction will be discussed. However, for the reason previously cited,
this is an artificial separation made for purposes of presentation. In this regard, design
as used herein only refers to determination of liner dimensions.

For clearer insight into key geotechnical considerations in tunnel design and
construction, the reader is referred to Volume 1 of this study (Peck, et al., 1980).

2.7.2 Design

Based on our review of available tunnel liner design techniques, as presented

herein, the geotechnical parameters required for design are as follows:

(1) Depth of overburden.

(2) Position of groundwater table.
(3) Coefficient of lateral earth pressure and subgrade reaction.
(4) Strength (unit cohesion and/or angle of internal friction).
(5) Poisson's ratio.
(6) Unit weight.

In recently developed design methods, material properties of the potential liner sections
must be known before the lining system can be designed. Using the above information,
the liner size can be determined for various lining systems. However, the shape of the
tunnel section usually is pre-determined by the construction method used which, in turn,
is related to the geology of the site.

The drainage provisions incorporated in the tunnel lining system have a direct
impact on both the design and long-term maintenance. The reduction of hydrostatic
groundwater pressure by a drainage system can greatly reduce the loads acting on the
tunnel lining. The water quality will affect the selection of materials for the lining and
the specification of any long term maintenance operations which may be required. The
water quality, namely pH and sulfate, chloride, carbonate, and calcite contents, affect
the selection of materials for the lining. The resistivity of the surrounding material will
also affect the long-term maintenance of the lining and other support members.

The geotechnical parameters required for the design techniques covered in this
report can generally be determined using available site exploration and laboratory
testing techniques for accessible sites. Therefore, unless a future breakthrough in
tunnel liner design occurs requiring different design parameters, no improvements in
currently available site investigation techniques are required for accessible sites solely
for purposes of design. New site investigation techniques are required to establish
ground parameters for design at inaccessible sites.

2.7.3 Construction

Contractors approach geotechnical information provided by owners with varying

degrees of apprehension. Some ignore it while others commission their own studies.
There is, therefore, a very uneven approach to bidding work and, in some cases, the
bidding process may be little more than a lottery.

Even those contractors who commission their own studies or reviews may not be
in a position to make full use of the information developed because it becomes available
too late in the bidding period. Once the estimator has proceeded on the basis of his own

48
judgment, using the available geotechnical report to confirm or modify this judgment,
he will rarely change his figures to reflect an expectation of more favorable conditions
although he will add a contingency for those less favorable than he had originally
anticipated.

Given this situation, the owner's best interest will be served if he provides a full
and complete geotechnical report for all but the most straightforward projects. Ideally,
this report should represent the owner's guarantee, or at least indicate his degree of
confidence in the data provided as a basis for any future changed condition negotiations.

Information specifically useful to the contractor will not be the same from job to
job, will clearly differ between soft ground and rock tunnels or between tunnels and
and
caverns. However, in general, the types of information provided should serve to allow
judgments to be made concerning:

1. Temporary support design.

2. Water problems.
3. Stability problems.
k. Safety.
5. Best construction method.
6. Muck handling and disposal.
7. Conditions of access.
8. Anticipated overbreak.
9. Size and frequency of boulders.

2.7.3.1 Temporary Support

The contractor is generally responsible for design of the primary tunnel lining as
well as temporary support for shafts. As a result, he requires the same geotechnical
parameters as the designer (previously cited in Section 2.7.2) to accomplish these goals.
The design values the contractor uses for his temporary support design may not be
equivalent to those used by the designer for the permanent support. This is due to the
lower degree of conservatism applied to temporary supports and the contractor's more
intimate knowledge of the construction procedures which will be used. As a minimum,
he will require design values for shear strength parameters (unit cohesion and angle of
internal friction), coefficient of lateral earth pressure, a modulus of subgrade reaction
and Poisson's ratio, and estimates of ground surface and water table elevations relative
to construction. Relative to the latter, the contractor should be provided with
estimates of the type of water flow anticipated both with respect to volume and
whether the flow will be constant or decaying with time.

Another key characteristic important to the contractor is stand-up time, i.e., the
length of time the tunnel walls and face can remain stable without support. This will
have a substantial impact on his planned construction sequencing and, correspondingly,
the cost of the proposed tunnel. Related to stand-up time would be knowledge of the
slaking, squeezing or swelling characteristics of the ground through which the tunnel is
to be driven.

2.7.3.2 Water Problems

One of the principal differences between soft ground and rock tunneling is the
impact of water on construction. Potentially, water can be much more of a problem
when driving tunnels through soft ground than through rock.

49
 The contractor should be provided with an indication of whether the flow will be
steady or decaying, whether the water has access to a recharge source, whether the
water is from a perched water table, the temperature of the water, the potential effect
of dissolved salts, the effect of water on the formation being excavated, e.g., will the
formation be transformed into flowing ground, and the contractor should be informed of
the presence of water under pressure below the excavation and maintained by thin
impervious strata.

2.7.3.3 Stability Problems

Stability problems are generally associated with stand-up time. Unfortunately,

the state-of-the-art of tunneling is not such that one can accurately predict stand-up
time from geotechnical parameters. However, research is currently underway to
improve our ability in this area (Myer, et al., 1977). In the interim, tunnel designers and
contractors will have to continue to rely on past experience.

The principal geotechnical property relating to stability of the tunnel face and
excavated surfaces is shear strength, particularly cohesion. Deterioration of shear
strength with time, e.g., as a result of drying or seepage pressure from water entering
the tunnel face, can lead to raveling, running or flowing ground.

Residual stresses within the soil can also lead to instability of the tunnel face
and walls. They can result in squeezing and swelling of the ground surrounding the
tunnel. Knowledge of the geologic history of the area can be instrumental in
determining whether residual stresses may be a problem. More needs to be known about
the source or origin of residual stresses in both soil and rock, and how to predict their
presence and strength.

Gould (Hampton, et al., 1980) summarized stability problems related to tunneling

and indicated the geotechnical properties and parameters required to evaluate them.
Gould's summary is reproduced in Table 10.

2.7.3.4 Safety Problem s

Gas is always a potential health hazard in tunnel construction. An effective gas

monitoring program is necessary to avoid potential problems related to the presence of
explosive and/or noxious gases. In so doing, air samples must be taken at the bottom of
borings and tunnels as well as at the top in order to detect potentially dangerous gases
which are both heavier than air as well as lighter than air.

Effort is also needed to identify the properties and sources of gases, and to
predict their occurrence.

Attempts must also be made to detect the presence of caustic minerals in the
ground. Ground which slakes when exposed to air or water must also be identified since
they can represent a safety hazard.

2.7.3.5 Best Construction Method

Based on consideration of the matters discussed in this section, a well planned

and executed site investigation program can yield sufficient information so the
contractor can select the construction method best suited to the ground conditions. If

50
a
D residual to
modulus
modulus
K
o & &
wells

a Procedures

Evaluation
tests

tests: penetrometer
values
with
and

testing constant
gradation

&
testing

and
Investigation
with values chiefly
strain
strength
piezometers
deformation

UJ water-carry-

sampling
N sampling
sampling
change
sampling <5c pumping

Specific
strength
shear & pressuremeter

identification, permeability
observation
utilities

and
< for Correlation

index
special

tests
Correlations
strength
laboratory
determine:

Vol.
Shear Spring

testing: density
testing
conditions

vane,
and
en Boring,
In-situ
Boring, Boring
in-situ
Boring,
In-situ Install Ac Survey
ing
_»
UJ
Z
Z
D of
structure
Ac and
strength

permea-
strength

Q planes properties lab ground

to (0 properties stress- characteris-

Problem
41 presence identifica-

strata
identifica-

strata

uj Q. or levels

Z 4) ned
C
lary ne
ik
of singularities

Approaches of
Exploratory

i undrai seconc
we,

gross Determine
strain
field
methods

Determine Determine water

41 bility
Determi General tion General tion tics
Identify
on
Identify
by
o Q
CJ

UJ 2)
or
_J 1)
secondary
or
:Q folia-
slickensides
especially

contrast

O overconsoli-

clay
loose
discontin-

ground
relic pervious
consolidated

a, to
and with
but
and especially:

unconformity
surfaces;

z silt
joints,
major
marked
permeability

o Setting
Peculiar
Problem
slightly
Overconsolidated
soft clays
in

H material
structure:
problem,
erosion

u or
dated
tion, soft
sands
strata,
with
uity,
with

in
D Normally Chiefly
General

(/)
Z
o
u tn and
soils

on
Q E
failure
k.
O
a
shield

z _4>
J3 a formation
o.
tunneling

piping
drainage

< O
u
3
V)
shear time
3
on
movements
from
quantity
water

z Q. > loading
bearing
stability:

C
loading

by or
i_ of
O
a fO
k.
o
*>
c
10
Deformation

drawdown

to 'u a. Squeezing
Settlement
control
stability Permanent

V Applied
E Applied caused

UJ a. E Footer Tunnel Heading

Stand-up
Chimney
k>
Ground Seepage Running Effects

a t/1
1-
4) 1)
a.

___

or __

Point
Shear
—

UJ Problem Soil Deformation

—
Water Control

General
Below Seepage
and
Failure Yielding
Category — •

Soil Yield

< of
—

51
a
_i
D examination

O
o Procedures

sample 6c.
exam-
logging

surveys
& of hardness

or mineral
excavations
of
and
pyrites

index cores:

pro- rock
of for ground
identifi-

&
unconfined
literature literature

tu Investigation
Evaluation

field field testing

mapping
survey
and samples

sampling and sampling

r- testing values;

Index
of samples
cores
determine
discontinuities and testing of
identification

<
detailed examination
thin-section
properties conditions

Specific
trial organics
utilities
Geophysical strcnglhs; Geophysical hardness,
mineral Geophysical
content water
and ination cation
testing Detailed
for survey, index cores:
Index survey, tests soil rock

Boring,
& Geologic

to Boring,
Geologic Borehole
Special Geologic

of
filing

Index
Testing

UJ
Z
Z in
D and test and pro-
and
pro- pre-

f- quality
shafts, record-
and
as
Q
uses presence
direct- adits
to properties
full-
review

identifica-
field mass

UJ Problem
strata drifts
geology

Z high
recovery

testing
structure
trial and
and
examine
site and
gas exploration

Exploratory
Approaches of exploration: exploration Include

rock
Exploration to perties borings
gross shafts, vious
Full-scale drifts
adits blems
core
scale and
Li. Identify
General tion
ed In-situ of
General
for Testing ing

o Also
Study

t/5

UJ in:
&t
by critical

0)
CD especially

alluvium; overcon-
with
or
locations,

O C residual
sedimentary
clay-shales

problem,
aspects
foliated

and properties
problem
aspects
sedimentaries

areas,
organic-

•M to
ground penetrated
Also massive rock sites

a, c but
containing
facies

o or

z
sedimentary

highly and
Problein torrential
of urban storage
soft

o
critical critical
metamorphics; discontinuities

Setting Peculiar soft rock sedimentaries rock

hard
crystalline Industrial
above.
weathering,
organics

solidated derived
problem, profile siliceous
jointed
rocks
varying
fuel or
u in:
soils;
rocks;

General
but
deeply

General
but
as In:

D
General Built-up

Soil

Qi

Z
o air

u sllcken-
zones,

supports
fragment- rock
and
pollutants,
water-

Q E above tunneling:
methods

z _c> stabiliza- utilities:

3o rock
temporary ground compressed

< C
u deformation
as
oversize,
weakness:
failure
effect,

and
stresses
slabing

face
handling

of
fluids
gases

electric,

z V
structure,

a cementation.
old on
permanent

or
Mechanical Hardness
Variability
of excavation

volatile of Dangerous

m ~v
CI
c
seepage

Obstructions:

surface,
cavities softening
squeezing
Softness
Temporary

tion
Material
Presence
Natural
gas,
carrying

UJ sides,
Weathering
Use

a 1/5 failure, & Secondary relic

Loading & log

Residual

Popping

Construction
Problems
Problems

UJ Problein
Soft Ground
Construction
Rock Structure
Problems
Rock
Special Quality
Problems

Safety and
General
Category

CQ
< of

52
additional information is required it will become evident from his review and this may
lead to excessive contingencies.

Due to the fact that tunnel design and construction are intimately related, the
tunnel designer should consider those matters related to constructibility as a part of the
normal design procedure. Correspondingly, the current trend is to have the tunnel
designer prepare a tunnel design report which details the geotechnical conditions along
the proposed tunnel alignment, discusses potential problems of construction which might
arise and suggests possible ways in which these problems might be overcome. Assuming
this report is written before the start of final design and is provided to the contractor
prior to bidding, it should be of aid to both the designer and the contractor, and should
lead to lower bid prices, especially if the validity of the report is not negated by
exculpatory statements.

2.8 CONCLUSIONS
Based on the information presented in this chapter, the following conclusions
have been reached regarding the design and construction of tunnels in soft ground.

2.8.1 Design

(1) A review of the state-of -practice of tunnel liner design indicates that the
currently utilized geotechnical design parameters are as follows:

(a) Soil profile.

(b) Position of the groundwater table.

(c) Shear strength (unit cohesion and angle of internal friction).

(d) Modulus of subgrade reaction and/or coefficient of lateral earth

pressure.

(e) Poisson's ratio.

(f) Unit weight.

The aforementioned parameters can be estimated using available site

investigation and laboratory testing techniques.

(2) Most of the design methods studied assume linear elastic behavior.
Strictly speaking, this assumption not valid. Correspondingly, advancement of the
is
state-of-the-art of tunnel liner design requires development of nonlinear, inelastic
design procedures which more closely relate to real life response of liner and ground to
tunneling. These procedures should be checked for accuracy by the use of
instrumentation which will permit comparison of predicted behavior with actual
behavior.

(3) The accuracy of currently used methods of tunnel liner design needs
further verification where potential cost savings exist. This can be done by providing
instrumented test sections which can monitor the response of both the ground and
tunnel liner to tunneling.

53
 (k) Tunnel design and construction are related. In order for the designer to
satisfactorily design a tunnel he must understand the response of the ground to
tunneling and how the contractor will build the tunnel. A current trend is to have the
designer prepare a design report which discusses the geotechnical conditions along the
route of the proposed tunnel and their impact on tunnel design and construction. This
procedure has two advantages. The first is that it forces the designer to logically think
through the design and construction of the tunnel. Second, such reports also provide the
contractor with the designer's "best estimate" of ground conditions along the line of the
tunnel and an indication of potential problems, with approximate locations, which the
contractor is likely to encounter. The availability of this report should lead to
economies in tunnel costs, especially if the validity of the report is not negated by
disclaimers and is provided to the contractor in a timely manner.

2.8.2 Construction

Geotechnical ground parameters are used by the tunnel contractor for (1) design
of temporary support, including the primary tunnel lining, (2) gaining an appreciation of
potential groundwater problems and arriving at decisions as to how to cope with them,
(3) making an assessment of stability problems and deriving solutions to same, (4)
assessing potential safety hazards, and (5) determining the best methods of tunnel
construction. For these purposes, all the geotechnical parameters needed for design
plus additional information regarding the water regime, the presence or absence of
noxious and explosive gases, and standup time are required. These geotechnical
parameters can be reasonably approximated using presently available site investigation
and laboratory testing techniques coupled with an understanding of ground response to
tunneling. Hampton, et al. (1980) discuss techniques for in situ determination of ground
parameters for design and construction of tunnels. Peck, et al. (1980) discuss the
philosophy and approach to site investigation for tunnel design and construction.

The great need in the area of site investigation related to tunnel construction is
the development of a site investigation technique which can accurately locate
obstructions along the alignment of the tunnel.

5k
3.0 DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF TUNNELS IN ROCK
3.1 INTRODUCTION
This chapter presents pertinent aspects of tunnel liner design in rock and the
impact of geotechnical parameters on the design. Analytical techniques and empirical
design methods, based on classification, in current use for lining analysis are reviewed.
Tunnel support systems commonly used in rock tunnels are also discussed.

3.2 REVIEW OF TUNNEL DESIGN METHODS CURRENTLY USED

Discontinuities in rock are the main source of loadings to which a tunnel in rock
will be subjected. These discontinuities can result from mechanical defects such as
fractures (any break in a rock mass) or from chemical defects due to decomposition of
individual mineral constituents of rocks. Therefore, knowledge of the nature and common
defects of the principal classes of rocks is a prerequisite for adequate tunnel design (Peck,
et al., 1980).

Every rock mass has mechanical defects, i.e., fractures, which have no direct
connection with its inherent micro properties. Fractures which are continuous and have
well defined patterns are called "joints". Extensive fractures along which a relative
displacement of adjoining masses of rock has occurred are called "faults." In some
instances, the rock adjacent to faults is completely disintegrated and this is termed a
"crushed zone" or "shear zone." In those instances where a rock has inherent mechanical
defects, such as bedding or cleavage planes, joints and faults constitute a supplementary
source of weakness.

Since joints are among the most important sources of load on the tunnel lining and
problems in tunnel construction, they deserve careful consideration. For economical
tunnel design and construction, it is important not only to know the jointing pattern in the
rock and its orientation to the proposed tunnel alignment but also to know the character
of the joints. Regarding the latter, of particular importance are (1) whether the joints are
open or closed, (2) the character of the material filling the joints, (3) the anticipated flow
of water toward the tunnel through the joints in the rock, (k) the potential for movement
along the joint, etc. Information which will permit the designer reasonably to determine
the jointing pattern in the rock and the character of the joints should, if at all possible, be
obtained by subsurface investigation. However, accurate determination of joint spacing
and the water bearing capacity of a rock mass is often difficult prior to construction.
Tunnel linings in rock are assumed to support a rock load which is a function of the height
of rock mass that tends to drop out of the roof if left unsupported. Correspondingly, the
rock load depends principally on the presence of discontinuities in the rock mass, such as
the spacing and orientation of the joints, which may change from point to point. Rock
load also depends on groundwater conditions, the initial state of stress in the rock prior to
tunneling, the size of the tunnel opening, the depth of embedment, etc.

The concept of average rock load (Table 11; Terzaghi, 1946) is one of the early
concepts that quantitatively predicts rock pressures for tunnel support design. This
criterion has been used widely, and found to be a workable and successful design criterion
for steel-supported rock tunnels constructed over the last three decades. In addition, this
criterion usually provides adequate support capacity even if rock blocks loosen
significantly above the crown of the tunnel. Very few measurements have been made of
the actual loads on steel ribs installed in rock. Those measurements which do exist
suggest that Terzaghi's rock load method is conservative, particularly when rock tunnels
are constructed using modern methods of blasting or tunnel boring machines.

55
 TABLE 11

TERZAGHI ROCK LOADS (Terzaghi, 1946)

Rock load H in feet of rock on roof of support in tunnel

1
with width B (ft) and height H1 (ft) at depth of more than 1.5 (B + H.).
T

Rock Condition Rock Load H in feet Remarks

P
1. Hard and intact zero Light lining, required only
if spalling or popping occurs.

2. Hard stratified or to 0.5 B Light support.

schistose

3. Massive, moderate- to 0.25 B Load may change erratically

ly jointed from point to pointo

4. Moderately blocky 0.25 B to 0.35 (B + H ) No side pressure

and seamy

5. Very blocky and (0.35 to 1.10) (B + H ) Little or no side pressure

seamy

6. Completely crushed 1.10 (B + H ) Considerable side pressure.

but chemically Softening effect of seepage
intact towards bottom of tunnel re-
quires either continuous support
for lower end of ribs or circular
ribs.

7. Squeezing rock, (1.10 to 2.10) (B + H )

moderate depth Heavy side pressure, invert

struts required. Circular ribs
8. Squeezing rock, (2.10 to 4.50) (B + H ) are recommended.
great depth

9. Swelling rock Up to 250 ft irrespective of Circular ribs required. In

value of (B + H ) extreme cases use yielding
t
support.

The roof of the tunnel is assumed to be located below the water table. If it is located per-
manently above the water table, the values given for types k to 6 can be reduced by fifty
per cent.
>

"Some of the most common rock formations contain layers of shale. In an unweathered state,
real shales are no worse than other stratified rocks. However, the term shale is often applied
to firmly compacted clay sediments which have not yet acquired the properties of rock. Such
so-called shale may behave in the tunnel like squeezing or even swelling rock.

Ifa rock formation consists of a sequence of horizontal layers of sandstone or limestone

and of immature shale, the excavation of the tunnel is commonly associated with a gradual
compression of the rock on both sides of the tunnel, involving a downward movement of the
roof. Furthermore, the relatively low resistance against slippage at the boundaries between
the so-called shale and rock is likely to reduce very considerably the capacity of the rock
located above the roof to bridge. Hence, in such rock formations, the roof pressure may be
as heavy as in a very blocky and seamy rock.
56
 With improved understanding of rock behavior and the benefits of accumulated
experience, Deere, et ai. (1970), proposed practical guidelines for the selection and sizing
of primary support systems for tunnels in rock. Their basic concept is that the support
system installed in the tunnel be considered as reinforcement to assist the rock to support
itself rather than to actually support the rock. The proposed criteria are presented in
Table 12. Major improvements over Terzaghi's method are related (1) to the use of a
quantified rock quality designation (RQD) as an index of the rock condition, (2) to the
distinction between drilling and blasting as well as machine excavated tunnels, and (3) to
generally reduced rock loads. In establishing this method, Deere, et al. (1970), have
assumed that the support system is installed as close to the face as possible, i.e., about 2
to 4 feet, and that the steel ribs are properly erected and blocked. These criteria,
together with the designer's personal experience, form a basis for design, although some
minor changes will doubtless be required during construction to account for the inevitable
uncertainties, such as the difficulty of installing support close to the face in a machine
bored tunnel. Figure 20 presents a comparison between Terzaghi's and Deere's rock loads
as well as field measurements. From this figure, Deere's rock loads are about 20% smaller
than Terzaghi's, but still are larger than the average of all observations. The potential
savings in steel rib costs, resulting from the use of tunneling machines are evident from
the 25 percent reduction in rock loads shown on the aforementioned figure. A further
design aid for sho terete is also suggested based on Liner and Lauffer's (1970) classification
of rock, as shown in Figure 21.

Most large, underground openings in good quality rock (RQD > 50) are usually
constructed using heading and bench or small multiple drifts. Their roofs are generally
supported by rock bolts and progressive loosening of rock blocks is minimized because the
rock bolts restrain rock movement. Cording, et al. (1972), indicated that over large
chambers the rock bolted ground arch is capable of supporting a height of rock equivalent
to from 0.10B to 0.25B (where B is the width of the rock opening), in rock of fair to
excellent quality. The comparison between Terzaghi's and Cording's rock load factors is
shown in Figure 22. It must be noted here that the extreme differences between the
opening support mechanism provided by steel ribs with blocking and a rock bolted ground
arch make the direct comparison somewhat incongruous.

3.3 CONSTRUCTION OF TUNNELS IN ROCK

3.3.1 Rock Mass Tunneling Behavior

Rock mass behavior during tunneling can be classified into four general categories
exclusive of massive rock: loosening rock, crushed rock, squeezing rock, and swelling
rock.

3.3.1.1 Loosening Rock

Hard and intact rocks do not commonly present problems at the tunnel face. Thus,
the first five rock conditions shown in Table 11 will be classified as loosening rock for the
purpose of discussion. Support is primarily required to hold, in place, the blocks
immediately surrounding the tunnel so that they do not move toward the opening and allow
larger volumes of rock to loosen and displace toward the tunnel. The size and shape of the
blocks are determined primarily by the orientation of the joints. The height of rock that
must be supported above a tunnel in loosening rock is related to the width of the opening,
the quality of the rock, the strength along the joints, and the rock displacements during
excavation and support. Slaking rock also can be classified as a loosening rock. Slaking is
most common in shales, and occurs when moisture changes take place at the surface of
the tunnel or along fractures behind the tunnel wall.

51
 E

1
-~
1
^^ vi ^
re
1
l. ir> l- Ln U
" ~ ""° T~ ~
it ~ °
t£ oa —X
i2
«-
x> ^~ O vC

^^ X> .S
1
1

1
"2^:"E_t: °
cj <j to V > u > u t; *"
•=
- J. ?
i

z z
5
z
5
z
LLLLOrSvP—
C
O X
Cu 02
""

02
^. ^.
!_
o
o
a.-^
= 3o
„

J L
\
-1
«CJ o c —
4> -r o c
h 2 Q. tn i_ •—
C
O
°
ft •—
^ 4)
O 4)
- 4;
.. sC
L.
c - .=
io =5 >
1 </1 5 C C c •- —
„ !
z z z z Z j- a-
c ^ tn
4)
i 1

C 1

1 -* |

u |

1 1
;

c c
-£ 2 ° c
t— m '^ '£ 'C
03 re fO ro
4)
"it
U U
to o y 'J
r
. «n • ^^ O
— r*
£ c
_J (-
(^
cl—
ra i^
C
ro
•

LJJ
Z 5
Z £"3 c
" u re
0* ° ^
*- C __ c u ** O
U O n O ro rx (N rN *' —E ^ c
H 1/1 Z Z _J _] fN J- ^> ^
t- £
41

i/i X) X)
>, re I- 1 (/I 1- 1 ir
0O v> rfl i_ a. re 1- 0.
c XJ j= 4j re -p 4) re
C
o >,
x>.2 ro
1-
O 1^
re
</i
ro
y
j3
"5
'</)
^„, u2
X! in
is
in

H Q. k» -z n re jr jz c c
C. 11 \A IS) >-~ x>
> Co and
C an
Limit me me may ma
X) strap; strap;

4) c Additione

> (0 quirements

mesh mesh
CN onal onal

—'
02
o n
k.
o s s tnd red md red rage tain.
red. rage tain.
red.

c orage

tU
u.
r-
L.
4)
Ifl

~ c~
Q.
V JZ
4)

re
4>

re
ro ^
U h U
U « U
ro
ll\\%l*SL\&&\
SS^^S^ J
C ^
-C
ro
4)
u
< o <y
< C2 Q2 O O S 2 < <
CQ? to

<E <J
O
— (8 "re _ *-
R of
"rti
6
to ft ft ft ft
(Condition
rock)

Pattern
to
occasion,
to
occasion
iccasiona
56 6 5 5 J-
< racing Bolts
one one
to to to to
O
2 poor to
m
5 to z z O <^ .3- «"» rsi

c «-•
U- __ ,

O ro
c
<0
c ro so
z u
00 .^
ft -> ft —° °az *-M
•H
4-*
<«
***
»->
+4
"- 1

000
in ^j it
g
H
c
u
56 \e its a- J"
one
occa
one
occa ccas
to
O
U Q.
to to
UJ to z z O lO, i^\ <f r^i rx
_)
UJ >, .

1/1 £ P «
a2 ^ in
£ 5£ | E| ium
heav
cular

x: *-• •« XJ .2
O tn
00 OJ
+->

£00
->
£00 x:
*- 4->
£00 £«j00 X)C x:00 41 41 x>
IJ
>-
u.
i^i
<u
c/)
•5 ">

_) _)
00
_i _J j J
C 4)

-S
'H is
s
-5
u "S
s*
z 41
Zj
UJ
in
_
CO CO
A
»
5& CO CO CO CO
Q X) r? <•< vO «^ ^0

(J
g
J c£
£3 d d d
O
d
<"*v
000—O
_;

d-
-i

\0
<N
O
4-»

m
oiS d d d d d d — c
c 0
o X) X) X)
c - c c
V ^
£^
4) rS 00 ro 00 <0 00 re 00
lj5 OOJC
.£ 00
c
E
<-•
M •E 00 p
00-C c ^3 oox: c ~ 00 -P
.£ p 00.
c -
U «P u
4s
—C —
">
m — •£ « =
<f> 'ZZ
4) — to to re re re re •5 J5
C ^ •

O E
<

-Q
>- E'C 3 E i j E
j 1

CJ to O to O cQ D CO
>
"5
3
^° w ~j\
F 11 11

— ^
11

o /

=O
4) _ 3V r>» "^

(J
4) o< 1=1
rv £
o Q2 «> re 02 o2 itn

02 UJ O ^ U. >A O. r\i
-

58
 . . '

HI
01
m .¥
U
X o
.2 t: t/5 2 C X 0>
>
o _ t> 9J 01

o c .!= E io V)
3 3 >< 3 8 (0

< en <H
> cr
0i
Ql 41
k.
01 Tl
*- >v
01 k. TJ
i. in X 01
>
C
_3
(0
4) 4)
k.
U
O m c
**
10
r-
inC O 4)
C O O c
O s k» 0> 2
<> 10
X3 u
k.
oi .t: !o
a c 01
D
°1
U « -o - O a.
o
o o 2
8 2 y
Q 3
-Li
10
o 3

U ?8 u u k.
o 01
k. ,._,

c
o
k. 1/
OS
£.2 k.
«- c 10 c
z o <- o fO o SI o o
c £ oi .a u 01
oi
o oo 00
J o
u
o
a)
Z u o c
z k0
1)
f- oc
(0
£ ^ A
- *"
10
X.2 oi
3 C
C ~ 8.;a. s.: (J
c cr 4J
_ « (0 a.
o to ^ — got
t —
o
2° s 10

E~
10

.£ jn
oi
XI
c § c e in

H fO 5 2 3 Oi . "D 0> . m " 1) 1)

<o
"a]

CN
OCli c 00 D c 2P 01 4) g -o S e
o %
L.
o
o x 01
£ k. -Q
o
2S X 2S
E
o -a « 3
"»-d 4)
n,
i- ° 3
Q.
-5 -g £
I 8 o *- 01 »
jt m ._ c er -c.
w
8 2/5 yo?3yooit>
j; <n 00
D- O -5
-JOS —o £ 4) .C c a. E a CQ.tcrCa.ui- «
1) 4> C
£3
£
O 4) S * 10

—
< U
03 m <S> ^ >s
< C m k. "to

u — .2 Jo O 41
a. >
O (D ;
O ° c E c
a.
12
o
k. >s
c
(0

D
UO
oC »-
>>
° 5
y
k.
o o « o
> S.O. to CJ
^ 3
Hki to (0
01
< ?
c
01

C
=5 <o £ =
3
a. o
>. Oi
a. (J 4) (0 J3
O u £ o
z (0
a.
o LO rsi

u cr «
(0 —
"0 JO ^^ c ™ £ •-
LU P
-J
UJ
x:
00
~
o>
3Jg8 >,
>
3
y
S3 — o
4)
C
0>
.-. „, io .h u •- 00
"SSu 0> (J o>
0)
j: u 5 s g
o>
c u
x:
CL X > o. Q-o
c c
3 (0 o
O a.
u. ^ « « Q.
LO c .£ 3
UJ — 3 '

Z T3 __ i^
° 2 .t: s
Z3
UJ o
° 3 .y.
o °°^ nw 3 *
Q £Cu inD0) V<»a. O
5 q 41

D^
<-• *- i-
m
CN£ O
2 xi
2j in
01
18.
—R) uo w c .£
- — X •"
-.-* u—
O0 o
-
*- *
k- -I- OO-C C J= .c u o> .!= 0>
>
in 0) — "O an -C 01 - U-- .i
§5 .— c c c 3 "1 4)
o E I- 11J o E tt
01 3 00 U „
U CJ 3D
C 0>
i_
0>
ro
.

O JZ O cr

- —c°°P . 00 c
00 4i

E a.
41
1g-2£
<0 — Cs| c 00, i- c -^;
3 o -o -a
„ N £ g N 4, -D .2
—c C X 10
a 5
S 1 Q. O > C
11 *
2
-o
00 o c
00 0C 01
u >- r; uJ c- c S u
o Oi O. C; m (0 m O0 4) m O 00 k§i
OS > >

59
 cr
o
t-
o
<
Q
<
O

o
o

20 40 60 80 100
R.Q.D.

A. AVERAGE FOR TERZAGHI S ROCK LOAD FACTOR.

B. RECOMMENDED FOR STEEL SETS, CONVENTIONAL
TUNNELING.
C. RECOMMENDED FOR STEEL SETS, MACHINE
TUNNELING.
o FIELD MEASURED ROCK LOADS.

FIGURE 20. RELATIONSHIP OF ROCK LOAD FACTORS AND RQD

(DEERE, ET AL, 1969)

60
 2 sec. 10 mm. hr. 10 I day 7 I mo. 3 I yr. 100
STANDUP TIME

REINFORCEMENTS FOR ROCK CLASSES

A. NO REINFORCEMENT REQUIRED.
B. OR ROCK BOLTS ON 1.5-2 m. SPACING WITH
2 -3 cm. SHOTCRETE,-
WIRE NET, OCCASIONALLY REINFORCEMENT NEEDED ONLY IN ARCH.

C. 3 -5 cm.SHOTCRETE; OR ROCK BOLTS ON I- 1.5 m. SPACING WITH WIRE

NET, OCCASIONALLY REINFORCEMENT NEEDED ONLY IN ARCH.

D. 5-7 SHOTCRETE WITH WIRE NET; OR ROCK BOLTS ON 0.7-1

cm. m.
SPACING WITH WIRE NET AND 3 cm. SHOTCRETE.

E. 7-15 SHOTCRETE WITH WIRE NET, ROCK BOLTS ON 0.5-1.2 m.

cm.
SPACING WITH 3-5 cm. SHOTCRETE SOMETIMES SUITABLE; OR STEEL
ARCHES WITH LAGGING.
F. 15-20 cm. SHOTCRETE WITH WIRE NET AND STEEL ARCHES; OR
STRUTTED STEEL ARCHES WITH LAGGING AND SUBSEQUENT
SHOTCRETE.

G. SHOTCRETE AND STRUTTED STEEL ARCHES WITH LAGGING.

FIGURE 21. CLASSIFICATION AND DESIGN (LINER AND LAUFFER, 1970)

61
 VERY POOR FAIR
G00D-
POOR EXCELU
3.0

ao
STEEL RIBS, WOOD
oT BLOCKING (LARGE nBy
ii

c
DISPLACEMENTS)
(TERZAGHI,I946)
(Z 2.0
o
h-
o
<
U.

Q
<
O .0

o EXPERIENCE-,
o YIELD CAPACITY,
or
ROCK BOLTS IN
CHAMBERS 0.25
~y///////////\ o.fo
25 50 75 100
ROCK QUALITY, R.Q.D.,

FIGURE 22. COMPARISON OF SUPPORT LOADS FOR ROCK BOLTED

CHAMBERS AND STEEL RIB SUPPORTED TUNNELS
(CORDING, ET AL., 1972)

b2
3.3.1.2 Crushed Roc k

Crushed rock a type of rock which has been subjected to intense deformation,
is
e.g., by shear in fault zones, tectonic folding, or by rapid cooling of either volcanic or
intrusive rock, such that it has been reduced to a granular form similar to cohesionless
sand. The sixth rock condition (Table 11), completely crushed but chemically intact, can
be classified under this category. Depending on the particle size distribution, depth of
overburden, location of groundwater table, and allowable deformation of the support
system, based on Terzaghi's model tests with perfectly cohesionless sand (Terzaghi, 1946),
some load reduction due to the arching effect may be taken into account. However, the
actual overburden load reduction in this kind of rock should be based on field observations
of support behavior. A continuous support system and tight backpacking is required for
this type of rock.

3.3.1.3 Squeezin g Rock

Squeezing rock, items 7 and 8 in Table 11, "slowly advances into the tunnel
without perceptible volume increase. Prerequisite for squeeze is a high percentage of
microscopic and sub-microscopic particles of micaceous minerals or of clay minerals with
a low swelling capacity" (Terzaghi, 1946). The squeezing occurs when the rock, meeting
the above criteria, is too weak to support the additional loads caused by excavation of the
tunnel opening. The effect of the overload may be unnoticeable to the human eye where
the rock is friable or somewhat plastic. However, brittle rock may spall or pop off of the
tunnel walls explosively when stressed beyond yield. The behavior becomes more
complicated when residual tectonic stresses are present and when weak and strong strata
exist in the excavated cross-section.

The tunnel support system for squeezing rock is required not only to support the
weight of the blocks that loosen immediately around the tunnel, but also to stabilize the
rock that creeps with time into the opening and increases pressures on the support system.
The pressures that build up on the support system are a function of the creep strength of
the squeezing rock, the in situ stresses in the rock, and the creep deformations.

The best approach to providing adequate, stable, and economical support in such
conditions is to provide light, temporary support sufficient to prevent loosened material
from endangering men and equipment in the tunnel, while allowing a new state of
equilibrium to develop, and then installing permanent support after stress redistribution is
well advanced. If the squeezing stresses are moderate, rock bolts can be used to develop a
rock arch early enough to prevent major squeezing movements from occurring. It should
be noted that the use of rock bolts in "popping" rock is dangerous. Shotcrete is usually
used to provide a diaphragm between rock bolts, since it is easily repaired once the stress
redistribution has taken place. The use of steel ribs and lagging, as is quite common in
squeezing rock, has two major disadvantages: (a) the straight leg of a horseshoe set offers
little resistance to lateral loads, and (b) the presence of steel sets, especially in a
deformed condition, complicates excavation to re-establish the required cross-section.

As implied the preceding paragraphs, permanent lining design will be simplified

in
if some squeezing allowed to proceed before the permanent lining is installed, since the
is
rock will then largely be supporting itself. In confined conditions, the lining may be called
upon to resist varying loads which may in some cases exceed those due to the overburden.

63
3.3.1.4 Swelli ng Rock

Swelling rock, item 9 in Table 11, "advances into the tunnel chiefly on account
of expansion. The capacity to swell seems to be limited to those rocks which contain
clay minerals such as montmorillonite, with a high swelling capacity" (Terzaghi, 1946).
The presence of materials capable of swelling should always be suspected when
alteration products are found in the rock. The squeeze of a swelling rock into a tunnel
is always associated with an increase of the water content and a loss of strength of the
rock adjoining the tunnel. Water from any source can result in swelling, even water
drawn from cast-in-place concrete. The best control is the exclusion of water from the
tunnel, but this is rarely a possibility.

The pressure on the support in tunnels through swelling rock depends primarily on
the swelling capacity of the rock which is analogous to the swelling capacity of clays.
Einstein and Bischoff (1975) recommended design features and construction procedures
that can reduce swelling. They include use of (1) an invert arch, (2) anchored or bolted
invert slab, (3) frangible back-packing or compressible support, and (4) counterstress
slots.

Swelling clays present in joints intersecting the tunnel can also be controlled by
first cleaning out the joint near the tunnel opening, backpacking it with soft or
compressible material, and then covering the joint with a reinforced shotcrete layer
secured to the rock mass with anchors. For joints not intersecting the rock at a near
perpendicular angle, control is more difficult but considerable success has occasionally
been reported by using rock bolts to keep joints tightly closed. A strong permanent
lining installed immediately behind the face offers the best choice, since this will both
resist the loads and exclude water from the clay.

It should be noted that altered rock is often weak enough to be subject to

squeezing so that swelling and squeezing conditions may both be present at the same
time.

When rock in the tunnel is exposed to the atmosphere, dessication may occur
with time. This can lead to volume reduction (shrinkage) in the rock and spalling,
resulting in loosening of liner sets, lagging, etc.

3.3.2 Geotechnical Problems in Rock Tunneling

As indicated by Cording, et al. (1975), the basic requirements for a satisfactory

tunnel in rock are: (1) feasibility of construction, (2) protection of adjacent or overlying
structures, and (3) ability to perform over the intended life of the project. The first
requirement assumes the greatest importance. If the stability of the opening can be
adequately maintained during construction, the adjacent or overlying structures may not
be damaged by associated movements. Adjacent or overlying structures along the route
of the tunnel also must not be damaged by vibrations when blasting is used to advance a
tunnel.

Design of the permanent support will be discussed in subsequent sections. In this

section, the main difficulties associated with rock tunnel construction will be described.

3.3.2.1 Rock Problem s

The presence of rock discontinuities or anomalies, and the details of rock

structure, can cause serious problems during tunneling. For example, a thin dike of hard

64
soft rock mass, undetected prior to construction, couid affect the productivity of a tunnel
;

boring machine

The rock encountered in shear zones or fault zones is generally characterized by a

very close spacing of discontinuities and a resulting small particle size. Therefore, it is
likely to behave more like soil than rock. The occurrence of such geological conditions
may require major changes in the excavation method as well as in lining design, and will
result in considerable delays which, if unanticipated, will create additional cost,
particularly if the tunnel is excavated by a tunnel boring machine. In general, soft ground
hand-mining methods are used to mine through shear zones, with primary support by ribs
and lagging being one of the practical methods.

If hard rock and soft rock zones alternate machine tunneling, using conventional

grippers to provide thrust may give unsatisfactory results. The weak zones may provide
insufficient support to the grippers and fail before adequate thrust can be applied to the
cutting head. It is even possible for the machine to become seriously misaligned because
of this problem. One solution is to have the machine react against the previously installed
liner which must be designed to take the thrust, rather than relying on friction on the
tunnel wall.

The possible occurrence of squeezing and swelling rock should be investigated when
shales or schists are encountered. If a tunneling machine is used for the excavation, the
machine may be stalled in the zone of the swelling or squeezing rock. Swelling and
squeezing rocks are often accompanied by basal heave in a tunnel invert and an increase in
pressure on tunnel supports.

3.3.2.2 Water Problems

Water often causes stability problems and construction difficulties in tunnels. The
problem may be related to (1) high volumes of water that are difficult to handle and that
can erode the joint filling materials, (2) flow of unexpectedly encountered soils that are
not dewatered, (3) water pressure that acts on joint surfaces and affects the stability of
rock blocks, (4) water temperature, (5) water chemistry, or (6) water so deep in the invert
it interferes with mucking. Some of the most difficult problems are associated with
variations in permeability of the rock such as might occur where changes in lithology or
structure are present. In some cases, the water pressure about the tunnel may be the
driving force behind the squeezing of clay gouge or altered rock into the tunnel. Water
pressures can also create stability problems by reducing the effective stress between joint
surfaces, even if the quantities of flow are small.

The problem of waterbearing joints or seams may be overcome by one of the

following methods:

1. If a tunnel is at a shallow depth, and the rock mass is relatively pervious,

lowering the groundwater table may be an effective solution.

2. If the problem is foreseen during the progress of the tunneling operation, it

can sometimes be overcome by cementing or chemically grouting the problem joints or

seams in stages ahead of the tunnel face.

3. the problem occurs unexpectedly, a quick-set cement-chemical grout may

If
be effective in halting the flow. However, if a non-diminishing or erosive water flow is
established, grout may not serve to stabilize the flowing water. It may then be necessary
to install a bulkhead adequate to stop the flow and then grout behind it.

65
 4. Multiple drift construction,

5. Enlarged cross-section to handle water.

3.3.2.3 Gas P roblems

The occurrence of harmful gases such as methane, hydrogen sulfide, radon, and/or
carbon dioxide may be encountered in regions of postvolcanic activities. Shales are
sometimes associated with layers of coal or anhydrite containing explosive gas.
Consequently, it is imperative that monitoring for gas be carried out at the tunnel face in
these formations.

Consideration must be given to the fact that harmful and/or explosive gases may
either be heavier or lighter than air. Therefore, gas detection measurements should be
made both near the top as well as at the bottom of a borehole during the site investigation
phase. For adequate protection of miners, an adequate gas detection system plus proper
ventilation must be provided during advance of the tunnel.

3.3.3 Methods of Tunneling

Tunneling methods are selected mainly based on rock conditions, construction

economy and/or socio-environmental constraints. Drilling and blasting methods, and part-
face and full-face machine boring methods, are utilized for most tunnels in rock. For
some unfavorable rock conditions, such as crushed rock, squeezing rock, and swelling rock,
hand-mining, shields, and part-face tunnel machines may be used.

The drilling and blasting method of tunnel excavation has been used for more than
100 years, Many major improvements in drilling equipment and techniques, as well as in
explosives and blasting methods, have occurred and this method has been tested and
proven successful in nearly ail rock conditions. However, it has some disadvantages when
compared to the full-face machine boring method. They are: (1) Since the drilling and
blasting is a cyclic operation, the equipment used in each sequence is left unproductive for
the duration of other sequences, e.g., during the "smoke time," both manpower and
equipment are totally unproductive, (2) The drilling and blasting method cannot provide
detailed control of the size and shape of the excavation, e.g., overbreak usually results
which increases the muck and concrete quantities, and (3) The drilling and blasting method
produces an unavoidable loosening of the rock surrounding the opening and can possibly
cause damage to adjacent structures due to the vibrations created.

The use and mechanical design of tunnel-boring machines (TBMs) are governed not
only by the behavior of the rock mass, but also, and more importantly, by the strength and
hardness of the rock. The use of TBM's is also influenced by the dimensions and degree of
maximum curvature, if any, in alignment. TBM's have difficulty with short standup time
and with rock ranging from very soft to very hard in the same tunnel.

appears that most of the disadvantages of the drilling and blasting method have
It

been minimized or eliminated by tunnel boring machines. In addition, the average rate of
advance for a TBM is about 2 to 3 times higher than that for the drilling and blasting
method. However, the TBM has some disadvantages such as: (1) high initial cost, (2) a
TBM can readily excavate only a one-size circular tunnel, and (3) constraints on the tunnel
alignment because of the turning radius of a TBM— the advent of articulated TBMs has
minimized the impact of the latter. Furthermore, use of a TBM is limited in some rock

66
conditions, as for example: (1) a TBM cannot be used in crushed rock, squeezing rock, and
swelling rock, and, in general, a TBM is not recommended for use in rocks with RQD less
than 50 to 60 percent or with rock structure rating (RSR) less than 50; (2) The use of a
TBM is uniquely related to variations in quality of the rock mass expected, e.g., in the
case of unexpected, drastic variations in local rock quality, such as shear or fault zones or
zones of high strength rock, the incapacity of tunnel-boring machines to adapt to changes
in rock quality can be severe, and hand-mining methods may be needed to overcome the
difficulty.

Road headers, in some circumstances, combine the advantages of TBM and Drill
and Blast tunneling since they can excavate non-circular shapes while avoiding disturbance
of the rock fabric. However, their use is generally limited to soft and/or laminated rocks
although successful use has been reported in rock which is generally soft but with hard
inclusions. The inclusions are broken up by blasting. Advance rates are normally very
much lower than for other methods of tunneling, although there are indications that this
deficiency may be overcome in the future.

For the aforementioned reasons, a very thorough site investigation is necessary

before an adequate decision can be made on the selection of a tunneling method.

3.4 TUNNEL SUPPORT SYSTEMS AND LINING IN ROCK

3.4.1 Factors Influencing the Behavior of Lining Systems in Rock

In the publication entitled Tunneling Technology Colder Associates and James F.

,

MacLaren Limited (1976) indicated that the behavior of tunnel supports and linings is
influenced mainly by four factors. They are: (1) The geometric characteristics of
discontinuities in the rock mass, (2) The time between excavation and placement of the
support system, (3) The method of excavation and related amount of rock disturbance, and
(4) Flexibility of the support lining system.

3.4.2 Primary and Secondary Linings

It has been common practice during construction of tunnels in rock to provide two

stages of linings: a primary lining, e.g., steel rib and wood lagging, placed directly behind
the tunnel face to support the rock temporarily, and a secondary lining (cast-in-place
concrete), constructed at some later stage and designed to ensure long-term stability of
the tunnel opening. In general, both linings are assumed to support the entire rock load.
However, if nondecaying materials such as steel and concrete are used in primary linings,
such linings can be made permanent. Therefore, secondary linings are required only in
cases where waterproofing or fireproofing of the primary lining is required, or to improve
the appearance, acoustics or water flow properties of the inside of the tunnel. In swelling
rock, the secondary lining will have to carry a part of the swelling pressures. If the tunnel
is to be waterproofed, the secondary lining will have to be designed to resist external and,
in the case of water tunnels, internal hydrostatic pressures.

3.4.3 Steel Ribs and Wood Lagging

In blocky and seamy rock conditions, steel ribs with wood lagging have been an
effective rock support system in tunnels; although recently, there has been a tendency
toward use of other support systems such as rock bolts with shotcrete. The size of the
steel rib and space between the ribs can be computed by Terzaghi's "rock load method,"

67
based on local rock conditions., The size of the beams used ranges from 417.7 to 12WF65.
The spacing between ribs generally ranges from i to 7 feet, 4 feet being common. After
the steel set is positioned and bolted, each set is tied back to the previous rib with collar
bracing. To ensure full development of the strength of the steel ribs, wood blocking points
must be closely spaced and tightly wedged.

There are two advantages to this systems (1) It is an established, proven, system;
the possible sources of malfunction have largely been identified and empirical design
criteria have been well established which have proven to be satisfactory, and (2) The
method is adaptable to any rock condition as well as to local variability in the assumed
rock conditions.

Steel rib support systems have some disadvantages: (1) Installation of the wood
blocking requires extreme care and is time consuming, (2) The wood blocking and wood
lagging may decay with time and cannot be considered as a permanent lining, and (3)
Temporary steel rib systems usually project 6 to 12 inches into the excavated tunnel
sections, requiring overexcavation of the tunnel, leading to an increased cost of the entire
tunneling operation,

3.4.4 Rock Bolts

The use of rock bolts to support tunnel openings has been developed over the last
two decades. At first, it was used as a temporary support alternative to steel ribs and
lagging, but rock bolts are now being used on several tunnel projects as a permanent
support system. Long-term experience is not available on the use of rock bolts as
permanent support. Only fully encapsulated types should be considered for such service
with close attention paid to protection of the bearing plate end. They should probably not
be considered permanent in any installation where regular inspection and replacement will
not be possible or practical.

To provide the necessary rock reinforcement, the rock bolts are installed in a
regular pattern to form a continuous reinforced rock arch as shown in Figure 23. To
maximize development of the rock arch, the spacing and length of the bolts must be
selected during construction in accordance with rock quality, joint condition, size of the
tunnel, etc. Most rock bolts currently in use consist of a steel rod with different types of
anchoring systems, such as split rod bolts, expanding shell bolts, resin rock bolts, etc. The
split rod, or "split set", rock bolt was introduced several years ago. This bolt consists of a
spring steel tube which has a longitudinal split. The bolt is driven into a predrilled hole
which is slightly smaller in diameter than the split set. This closes the split which
provides a reaction between the set and the sides of the hole. This type of bolt is clearly
"temporary" in nature, but it has been widely adopted in the soft sandstones associated
with uranium mining in the western states. Tensioned rock bolts can be grouted for
permanent protection against corrosion. Resin rock bolts can be used in almost all types
of rock,, because the anchor force is developed by adhesion of resin against the sides of the
installed holes. In an attempt to allow for an automatic remote controlled installation of
rock bolts, the U.S. Bureau of Mines is presently developing a fiberglass reinforced
polyester rock bolt, This bolt system consists of a fiberglass rod forced into a drill hole
and grouted in place with a polymer resin over the full length of the drill hole. No
pretension is applied. Results to date (Habberstaad, et al., 1974) show that the support
characteristics of this type of bolt are comparable with those of resin grouted steel rock
bolts.

68
 ^-A

NOTE:
A. BEARING SYSTEM BEARING PLATE .WASHER AND NUT.
;

B. ROCK BOLT.
C. ANCHORING SYSTEM.

D. ROCK ARCH.

FIGURE 23. REINFORCED ROCK ARCH FORMED BY ROCK BOLTS

(TAL0BREJ957)

69
 Understanding of the actual behavior of the rock bolt system is still somewhat
limited; thus, this system is not designed but selected based on (1) rule of thumb, (2)
previous experience under similar geotechnical conditions, and (3) engineering judgment.
Typical selection features can be summarized as follows (Golder Associates and James F.
MacLaren Limited, 1976):

1. The length of rock bolts should be greater than one-third of the tunnel
width.

2. Spacing between rock bolts should always be less than the length of the
bolts. the case of
In drill and blast tunneling, spacing should be less than one-half the
length of round.

3. Bolts should be installed in a fairly regular pattern—spacing of 3 to 8 feet

being the commonpractice. A regular pattern is used for estimating quantities but the
bolt installation is dependent on the conditions in the field.

4. Bolts should be installed as close to the face as possible, and as soon as

possible.

The use of rock bolts provides several advantages as a tunnel support system. The
advantages are: (1) Since the inherent strength of the rock mass is used to help support
the rock load, the necessary strength of the bolt support system can be minimized as
compared to that of the steel rib support system, (2) Due to the minimum projection into
the tunnel opening, rock bolts do not require any specific enlargement of the tunnel
diameter, (3) Rock bolts can be made permanent by grouting to provide corrosion
protection, so that a secondary tunnel lining for structural reasons often is not needed, (4)
The installation of rock bolts is relatively easy and may not interfere with the excavation
process, and (5) Support can be provided at greater speed at a lower cost.

Despite the apparent advantages of this rock support system, the support provided
discontinuous. Isolated falls of rock blocks are possible, and a continuous coverage
is still
of the tunnel roof by wire mesh or concrete may be necessary for transportation tunnels.
Besides, rock bolts are difficult to utilize in badly broken rock. In this case, the steel rib
support system may offer an economical solution.

3.4.5 Shotcrete

The support of rock by a thin layer (4 to 8 inches) of pneumatically applied

concrete is referred to as shotcrete. The concrete mix is designed to develop a sufficient
set strength within a few hours, and a high strength within 24 hours. Since shotcrete has
no strength immediately upon application and requires a certain time to develop its full
strength, its use is necessarily limited to rocks having a stand-up time longer than the
setting time of the shotcrete.

Shotcrete is forced into open joints, fissures, seams, and irregularities in the rock
surface. It serves the same binding function as mortar in a brick wall. The adhesion and
sxrength of the shotcrete layer provide significant resistance to the fall of loose rock
blocks from the roof of the tunnel, Shotcrete can be used either alone or in combination
with other support systems such as rock bolts, steei ribs, etc. Reinforcing in the form of a
wire mesh can also be used, but it often causes problems during installation. The wire
mesh tends to vibrate during shotcrete application, thus lowering concrete density and
reducing the concrete strength. Shotcrete is widely used to provide initial support in
biocky rock to prevent rock falls from occurring before rock bolts can be installed safely.

70
Additional shotcrete (with mesh or without) then serves to permit the shotcrete and rock-
bolts to act as a complementary system.

Shotcrete can provide a continuous, strong, yet yielding support system for rock in
a tunnel opening. It has the following advantages: (1) Since the shotcrete can be installed
immediately behind the tunnel face, it leads to a considerable reduction of the rock load
due to loosening; thus, the support requirement is minimized, (2) By providing a continuous
seal on the rock surface, it prevents air-slaking and moisture entrance into the rock; thus,
it is effective in rocks sensitive to air and moisture such as swelling rock, (3) Shotcrete is
adaptable for changing conditions and can be used in a variety of rock conditions.

The principal disadvantages of shotcrete are the lack of extensive experience as a

tunnei support in a variety of rock conditions, the dependence for adequate installation on
the skill of the operator, and the need for access near the working face, which may be
difficult in a TBM driven tunnel or small diameter tunnel because of restricted working
space or difficult access near the face. The use of shotcrete is also limited in areas of
crushed rock or loose soil and where high rates of water inflow prevail.

3.4.6 Bernold Lining System

The Bernold System consists of a concrete lining, reinforced by special steel sheets,
which can be erected close to the tunnel face to serve both as an intermediate tunnel
support and as a part of the permanent lining system (Figure 24). The main element in
this system is a special corrugated steel sheet as shown in Figure 25. The sheets have a
standard size of 3.5 feet by 4 feet with 0.118, 0.079, or 0.049 inch thickness. To form a
continuous lining, the sheets are erected in accordance with the tunnel curvature and in a
4-inch overlap with special connections. The sheets usually are erected in a vault close
behind the tunnel face and temporary support for the sheets is provided by steel sets. The
space between the vault and the rock is filled with concrete pumped in place. After
setting of the concrete, the steel sets are removed, the inner surface of the sheets is
covered with concrete or gunite.

This system is ideally suitable for rocks of low quality (generally, RQD less than
50%), especially for situations wherein falling rocks prevail. The system presents most of
the advantages of shotcrete. In addition, the sheets provide a greatly increased lining
strength. Full scale tests in Switzerland and Japan have shown that a Bernold lining had a
load carrying capacity 30 to 50 percent greater than that of an unreinforced concrete
lining of the same thickness.

The disadvantages of the Bernold lining system are: (1) The patented steel sheets
are costly, (2) Between installation of the sheet and setting of the concrete, a temporary
steel rib support system has to be provided, (3) If a tunnel boring machine is used for
excavation, the jacking forces need to be applied by use of a temporary steel rib support
system, and (4) The rock must be capable of supporting itself until the concrete sets.

3.5 LINING DESIGN IN ROCK BASED ON ROCK CLASSIFICATION SYSTEMS

Rock classification systems, when related to ground performance during tunneling,
can be effectively used to assess rock mass characteristics important in the design of rock
tunnels and in planning and selecting construction methods to be used. A detailed
discussion of rock classification systems available for use in tunnel design and
construction is presented in Volume 2 of this study (Hampton, et al., 1980). The

71
 m
"°
Is
O
C ro
m oi
CD -Q Q)

Q)
L L ro a> ro
03 tt)
ID

13
(-
10
D **- o G£
D ID " ro * u O
U T) O a) " a.
m C 0J— Q)
i3
a.
u mra O U O >>
0)
*->
0) 10 t-
C- 0) D- CO CD
C
u r c -q 0)

c
D L
U- 0) ro S cscn
r-C
u
Q
ro

CD
ro
C a
o
E.E.5
ro
£
- »->
o.
U L
l ro
"D
c
a:
LU <
roai »
— w m
U-O
^*-*U-AU
O
r
£)
(D
>
" OJ U
m cu •*-
jj
p
r
oo
°>££ CO -s:
2 E CO" UJ
- W a,
ro
c
_i ai QlL
CO
D ro

— -*-- V
ro
c
^
^-
jj
m a> a.
(D ™
S UJ
*; »3 " \f
:Jfr - ,
«*i 'l CI * 1
3
J
m
->

£u - in

dCD o
ro
o
ro

c c^uj
o Q_
h-
« C
to
o i
Q o a
«- ro
C
C L
K o ro _j
~ _j
UJ
s o
01 4J
ro ro

c r L
ro o.)
(D

CD j?S
01 t m
r .* D)
o U O
O i3
(0
roE
CD u 0)
C GENERA SYSTEM

•Efi.g
E
«
p
ro
^ -D D Q) •=

25 «- V ffl
o
o ro P D (1)

t to
ii Q UJ
o ro
s g S
or ro r r
CD
ro $

72
 OVERLAPPING
AROUND
TUNNEL
PROFILE

m
i

o
i-
o
LlI
CO

SECTION A-A

FIGURE 25. BERNOLD SYSTEM BOARDING AND REINFORCEMENT

SHEET (MacCOLLUM 1974, 1976)
,

73
aforementioned study also provides an evaluation of each of the classification systems
reported. Consequently, this section will only summarize significant aspects of
"representative" rock classification systems. For more details, see Hampton, et al.
(1980).

3.5.1 Rock Qual ity Designat ion (RQD) Classificatio n

Deere, et al. (1969), related RQD to Terzaghi's Rock Load Factor by actually
measuring rock loads in tunnels for both drill and blast as well as machine tunneling
methods. Deere, et al. (1970), provides a table relating the quantified RQD to the design
of three support systems— steel ribs, rock bolts, and shotcrete for tunnels 20 to 40 feet in
diameter in rock (see Table 12).

This classification system is based primarily on the performance of the steel rib
and wood block supported rock tunnels, hence, tending to perpetuate the conservatism of
this support system. Besides being a measure of joint spacing and other discontinuities,
the RQD could provide good guidance to the stability of the rock mass. The RQD has a
limited application for underground structures because it does not take into account the
rock strength parameters, frictionai values, method of construction, etc.

As a continuation and expansion of Deere's work, Cecil (1975) compared the rock
bolts and shotcrere requirements of 90 cases in Scandinavian tunnels with RQD, velocity
index, and joint frequency of the loosening rocks. He found reasonable correlations
between RQD and velocity index, and that most heavier supports are associated with the
average discontinuity spacings of less than 30 cm (12 inches). The heavier supports
referred to here are closely spaced ( < 2 m) rock bolts with multiple applications of
reinforced shotcrete.

Cecil further pointed out that the anomalies in correlation between support and
RQD are associated with the presence of softening clay in the rock mass, thin coatings of
clay and joint filling existing in widely spaced joints, and single sets of steeply dipping,
closely spaced, tight joints. The narrow range of rock conditions studied by Cecil
somewhat limits the applicability of his work.

3.5.2 Japan R o ck Qual ity Classification

An independent investigation was conducted by Ikeda (1970) to correlate the

support requirement with various rock conditions. He considers the geologic origin, type
of rock', and seismic velocity as primary parameters. The groundwater flow and Poisson's
ratio of the weathered rock are considered as secondary parameters. Then, based on the
method of excavation and size of the tunnel, the quantity of explosives, steel arch
support, and concrete lining thickness can be selected from the tables provided. It should
be noted that swelling rocks are not included in this classification.

3.5.3 South Africa n Geo mechanics Classificatio n

Bieniawski (1973 and 1975) proposed six parameters which significantly influence
the behavior of the rock mass. They are: (1) Uniaxial compressive strength, (2) RQD, (3)
Joint spacing, (4) Joint condition, (5) Groundwater inflow, and (6) Joint orientation. The
rock mass is classified into five classes, and the relative indices of the various parameters
are assigned. Summation of al! the values of the various parameters of the rock mass

74
 .

define the rock quality. Bieniawski used these classes to estimate standup time and, based
on actual field observations (Lama, 1978), the estimated values were found to be on the
conservative side.

The information derived from the rating process used to define the rock mass
is

class which, in turn, is utilized to select the appropriate primary supports. Note that no
rock loads are provided, and the classification system does not consider the size of the
tunnel opening. However, it has been reported to work for openings up to 12 meters with
success based on experience with South African rocks.

3.5.4 Rock Mass Quality

Rock mass was developed by Barton, et al. (1974 and 1975), considering
quality (Q)
tunnels and large underground chambers under a variety of rock conditions and support
systems. A total of 200 case records (90 from Cecil, 1975) on which Q is based included
13 igneous, 24 metamorphic, and 9 sedimentary rock types. The system takes into account
six parameters to determine the rock mass quality. They are: (1) RQD, (2) Joint Set
Number, (3) Joint Roughness Number, (4) Joint Alteration Number, (5) Joint Water
Reduction Factor, and (6) Stress Reduction Factor.

The approach to evaluation of the ratings is very detailed. Once the value of Q is
obtained, the support chart is used to allocate the rock opening to one of the 38 support
categories. This classification system is not yet a complete design system, but it provides
a useful guideline. As a further step, Barton, et al. (1975), relate the rock mass quality,
Q, to the anticipated support pressure for the roof as shown in Figure 26

Einstein, et al. (1979), made an evaluation of Figure 26. They indicated that the
support pressure-rock mass quality relationship is based mainly on large span caverns. In
most cases, the pressures are interpreted rather than measured. Also, data from the
Eisenhower (Straight Creek) Tunnel has a significant effect on the aforementioned
correlation of rock roughness values. If the Eisenhower case is omitted, the slope of the
J lines will become flat with insignificant slope. Therefore, more instrumentation data
are needed, especially for the rock mass with Q in the range 0.002 to 0.2, to give validity
to the correlations provided in Figure 26.

3.5.5 Rock Structure Rating

The concept of rock structure rating (RSR) has been developed by Wickham, et al.
(1974), for use in rapid transit tunneling and is based upon case history data of 53 tunnel
projects (broken down into 140 sections), with a total length of 200 miles in the midwest
of the United States. The tunnel diameters ranged from 8 to 36 feet. Practical and
empirical applications relating to tunnel construction were also considered. The RSR
concept contains three basic components:

Parameter A - a function of rock type, folding and discontinuities.

Parameter B - a function of joint pattern and direction of advance.

Parameter C - a function of groundwater and joint conditions.

The final RSR value is the summation of these three parameters.

75
 t— ^—
5
< Q
o o UJ Q
g UJ o o ^ O
Q.
CD W
O
CL
cr
UJ
en > or Q ~
>- tc Q
CD
LU cc
O O i-o o LL c QC h- o CD
X O x o UJ o <r o UJ X O X
UJa. UJCL > O. u_ CD > UJ CD UJ

STRAIGHT CREEK TUNNEL

(DESIGN PRESSURE]
e
o
V.
BARTON'S FIRST
10
EQUATION
J£
2.0 ,.-1/3
UJ
oc
z>
(/>
if)
UJ
cc
G.

h-
cr REGRESSION
o P=l.92xQ-0355
a. i r2 =0.848
CL
Z) P=l.20xQ-° 074 , r
2 =0.2!5
CO
.01 j. _L

.001 01 I 00 1000

ROCK MASS QUALITY, q = (502 ) x (^)x(^-)

Jn Jq SRr

FIGURE 26. CLASSIFICATION AND DESIGN (EINSTEIN, ET AL., 1979)

76
 To facilitate the use of the RSR in the design of tunnel linings, an empirical
relationship between RSR and rock loads has been developed. These rock loads can be
utilized to design any type of support system, i.e., rock bolts, shotcrete, and cast-in-
place concrete arch, etc. There are two major limitations of this correlation: (1 ) Since
all the tunnel sections considered had been supported safely, the actual factors of
safety of the supports are unknown; consequently, the correlation could be conservative,
and (2) The correlation is not applicable to swelling and squeezing rocks.

3.5.6 Review of Methods Based on Rock Classification Systems

The methods of tunnel support design based on rock classification systems have
great merit. The main advantage is that the systems are based on rock parameters for
which approximate quantitative information can be obtained from a geotechnical
investigation prior to actual excavation. However, it should be expected that the
support system designed on this basis would be subject to changes during the course of
tunnel excavation. Rock conditions are known to vary within short distances, so that
actual values of the quality index can differ locally from the average design values
obtained from a geotechnical investigation. These rock classification systems can also
provide the field engineer with a valuable tool for adjusting the average design to fit
local rock conditions.

Improvements are needed in rock classification systems currently in use. Based

on available information, the following needs exist.

1. The rock classification systems generally in use for rock tunnel design and
construction are based on empirical interpretations of successful case
histories; hence, they tend to be conservative. Data from tunnel failures
in rock should be used to reduce the degree of conservatism introduced
into the design of the support system.

2. Most of the classification methods are based essentially on tunnels

constructed by drill and blast techniques. These methods can be used for
the design of machine driven tunnels only through the use of an empirical
correction factor. Therefore, correlation of classification parameters
with ground conditions and tunnel support used in machine driven tunnels
is needed to place the design of such tunnels on a more rational basis. The
needed information could be obtained from case histories of instrumented,
machine driven tunnels.

3. Existing classification methods are most suitable for rock tunnels

supported by steel ribs. Satisfactory extension of these methods to the
design of tunnels supported by rock bolts and/or by shotcrete is possible.
Data from case studies of instrumented tunnels supported by rock bolts
and/or shotcrete is required to develop a satisfactory classification
system for use in the design and construction of rock tunnels supported by
rock bolts and/or shotcrete.

3.6 PRE-BIDDING GEOTECHNICAL REPORT FOR ROCK TUNNELING

A pre-bidding geotechnical report should be the end product of the pre-

construction site investigation program. It should include not only a summary of the
rock conditions of the site but also an interpretation of these conditions in terms of

77
design and construction of the tunnel, This report will benefit both the owner-designer
and the contractor.

The geotechnicai report will also provide a guideline for the resident engineer to
determine whether the geologic conditions assumed in the design are compatible with
those actually encountered in the field during construction. The information will thus
assist him in deciding whether or not a modification in construction procedures or support
requirements is needed. Many construction claims result not from changed or unexpected
geologic conditions, but rather from the misinterpretation of the observed geologic data.
Cording, et ai. (1975), provided an outline of a pre-bidding geotechnicai report (Table 13)
which is useful for both the tunnel designer and the contractor.

As shown in the table, the first step in the exploration is to establish the general
geologic framework of the area using ail available information,, Maps, air photos, geologic
data, engineering data and previous tunnel experience in the area should be collected, and
a general geologic reconnaissance of the area should be conducted. From this study, a
probable range of rock types, rock structures, groundwater regimes, degree of rock
weathering and fracturing, rock behavior during tunneling, and a geologic history can be
established. The potentially critical geologic features, potential tunneling problems, and
geologic information which is lacking or inadequate can be outlined.

The exploration program can then be directed to more completely delineate the
unknown site geology, particularly toward determining potentially critical geologic
features and tunneling problems, as well as verifying the average rock properties.

There are two distinctly different types of "Prebid Geotechnicai Reports for Rock
Tunneling"— one is done by the owner's geotechnicai staff or consultant, and the other is
done by the bidding contractor or his consultant. The purpose of the former is to explain
the impact of anticipated ground conditions on tunnel design and construction to potential
bidders. The purpose of the latter is to provide guidance to a particular contractor in the
preparation of his bid for tunnel construction.

3.7 GEOTECHNICAL PARAMETERS FOR TUNNELING IN ROCK

As with soft ground tunnels, the types of geotechnicai information provided for the
design and construction of rock tunnels should serve to allow judgments to be made
concerning;

1. Temporary support design,

2. Water problems.
3. Stability problems.
k. Safety.
5. Best construction method.

Ail of these are interrelated but serve to categorize the information sought.

3.7.1 Temporary Support Design

Rock Quality Designation (RQD) and the condition of the rock, e.g., degree of
weathering, would aid the determination of the load on temporary supports. The dip and
strike of major joint sets should be ascertained as should joint condition and the character
of the material filling the joints. Investigations also should be carried out to assess the

7&
 TABLE 13

OUTLINE OF THE PRE-BIDDING GEOTECHNICAL REPORT

(Cording, et ah, 1975)

1. Introduction

a. Scope, purpose.

b. Description of the site and project.

2. Geologic Features of Engineering Significance

a. General geologic framework—rock type, structure and brief history.

b. Rock Mass Quality (RQD, degree of fracturing).

c. Degree of Weathering.

d. 3oints, shears, and shear zones.

(1) General joint pattern: orientation and character of joint sets,

foliation, bedding planes.

(2) Orientation and character of shear zones, and other joint surfaces
which are slickensided, and coated with gouge.

(3) Location of major shear zones.

e. Rock cover, bedrock contours, and significant soil properties if mixed face
conditions will be encountered, if shafts will be excavated through these
materials, or if consolidation and settlement of overlying soils is
anticipated.

f . Summary of low quality zones along alignment.

g. Significant intact rock properties.

(1) Compressive strength.

(2) Rock hardness.

(3) Creep.

(4) Slaking durability.

(5) Swelling potential.

79
 TABLE 13

OUTLINE OF THE PRE-BIDDING GEOTECHNICAL REPORT

(Cording, et al., 1975) (Continued)

(6) Properties of gouge and other soil zones.

(a) Creep.

(b) Swelling potential.

(c) Plasticity, grain size.

(d) Residual shear strength,

h. In situ stresses.

i. Ground water conditions.

j. Interpretations.

^' History of Rock Construction in Area of Project

Case histories, boring and test data summarized.

^. Anticipated Tunne Ground Conditions

l

a. Tunnel ground classification— expected percentages of different tunnel

ground, rock quality.

b. Nature and extent of potential rock movements and overbreak for given
tunnel alignments.

(1) Effect of joints, shears, and weathered zones.

(2) Effect of in situ stresses.

(3) Effect of ground water.

c. Estimated water inflows.

(1) Maximum face flow.

(2) Maximum tunnel flows (give rates for tunnel lengths or divide into
known tunnel ground zones),,

(3) Water pressure and temperature.

80
 TABLE 13

OUTLINE OF THE PRE-BIDDING GEOTECHNICAL REPORT

(Cording, et ah, 1975) (Continued)

d. Tunnel hazards.
Highlight anticipated features that could cause collapse, require emergency
control measures, result in significant changes in excavation and support
methods, endanger life or property, or slow the tunnel operation.

5. Design and Construction Measures

a. Initial support— type and extent of rock wedges to be supported, required

capacities, installation sequences.

b. Special support procedures— multiple stage excavations, pre-support, and

special support procedures.

c. Excavation methods— controlled blasting requirements, feasibility of tunnel

boring machines.

d. Final lining design— rock wedges to be supported, other loading conditions,

design load criteria, assumed lining capacity, factors affecting deterioration
of the lining.

6. Instrumentation— Observations

a. Performance to be monitored including routine supplemental observations.

b. Methods of monitoring, specifications, coordination with construction.

c. Criteria to be used in evaluating observations. Methods for modifying design

and construction on basis of observations.

81
the slaking, squeezing or swelling characteristics of the rock as well as the material filling
the joints.

3.7.2 Water Problems

Groundwater conditions in the joints, faults and fissures must be ascertained. In

particular, the anticipated flow rate of seepage through the joint system and the volume
and pressure head resulting from flow in fau'ts and fissures must be quantified. Whether
the aforementioned flow is steady or decaying with time is also of prime concern, i.e.,
does the water have access to a recharge source.

Checks must be made to ascertain if water is trapped behind dikes or other

discontinuities along the line of the tunnel. One should also seek to determine the
temperature of the water, the presence of dissolved salts and their potential significance,
and the effect of water on the formation being excavated.

3.7.3 Stability Problems

Stabilityproblems in rock tunneling are principally related to the presence of

faults, shear zones, and unfavorable orientation of its jointing pattern. Regarding the
latter, the condition of the joints, e.g., whether they are rough or smooth, closed or open,
and/or siickensided joints containing chlorite and mylonite is of prime importance.

Other stability problems are related to raveling, squeezing or swelling ground

conditions. The condition and nature of the interface between dissimilar rocks or a
soil/rock interface must be ascertained in relation to its impact on the stability of the
tunnel excavation. Also, the variability of properties or structure within the rock mass
must be ascertained and its effect on the tunneling operation identified.

3.7.* Safety

Safety of the miners working in the tunnel is of prime concern. Investigations

should be made to identify the presence of gases such as methane, hydrogen sulphide,
radon, carbon monoxide, or other noxious gases. In addition, adequate ventilation must
always be provided inside the tunnel to insure adequate oxygen is supplied to people
working therein. In urban areas the presence of gasoline, or fuel oil, should be suspected
and tested for close to existing or abandoned service stations.

Investigations also should be made to identify caustic minerals which might be in

the rock and would be harmful to workers. Tunneling through coal, lignite and oil shale
also can represent a health hazard to miners and attempts should be made to identify and
locate such deposits along the line of the tunnel. A study of any past or present mining
activity in the area may be ci help in identifying these conditions.

Rock characteristics such as the ability to slake, spall or pop and the presence of
weak zones leading to arch or pillar failure under overburden load represent safety
hazards which must be identified during the site investigation program.

3-?»-5 Best Construction Method

The information prevously cited in this section will give most of the required
guidance to the contractor so he can select the best construction method for the
condit-onSf but certain other factors may be important. For example, the permeability of

82
the rock as it relates to required dewatering and grouting may impact the choice of best
construction method. Rock strength and hardness will impact the decision on whether to
advance the tunnel by tunnel boring machine (TBM) or by use of drill and blast techniques.
The presence of seams of very hard or tough material, such as quartz or hornblende, in
veins or pockets may also have direct bearing on the choice between the use of a TBM and
drill and blast techniques. Other information which aids in the selection of a construction
method and the estimation of project costs includes rock mineralogy, mineral grain fabric,
foliation, the nature of mixed faces and transitional soil/rock contact zones, and
estimates of potential overbreak.

3.8 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

The behavior of a rock mass during tunneling is strongly influenced by its
discontinuities. These discontinuities are developed by natural processes and may be
highly irregular in nature, and therefore, no currently available theoretical approach can
be applied to this kind of problem at this time. The design of structures in rock is based
mainly on experience accumulated from past performance coupled with laboratory and
field test results.

In order to systematize and improve our accumulated experience in rock tunnel

design, it is necessary, on a rational basis, to continue to correlate experiences in rock
tunnel design and construction with rock type, rock classification systems, and rock
behavior descriptions. This process would be enhanced through the use of instrumented
case study data which could be used to relate tunneling performance with ground
conditions and, ultimately, a rock classification system. Several existing rock
classification systems for tunnel lining design are based on such information.

Considering the present state-of-the-art, tunnel design in rock is an art rather than
a science. Based on as much information as feasible concerning the geology of the site,
the designer has to evaluate the impact of tunneling on ground conditions. To a very large
degree, an adequate assessment of the impact of site geology on tunnel design and
construction is based on past experience coupled with knowledge of the geology of the site
based on readily available site specific information and a subsurface investigation and
laboratory testing program.

Although there could be improvements in laboratory testing and site investigation

techniques, presently available tools, when properly used and the data interpreted by
knowledgeable persons, can be sufficient for economical tunnel design and construction.

83
4.0 INFLUENCE OF GEOTECHNICAL PARAMETERS ON PERMANENT LINER DESIGN
4.1 INTRODUCTION
A number of analytical approaches for tunnel lining design are available and many
of these techniques have been modeled using the computer. An investigation of the design
methods which are currently being used indicated that the three computer programs most
often used are:

• STRESS

• SAP (Structural Analysis Program)

• STRUDL (Structural Design Language)

They are all very similar for this application with the major differences being input/output
ease and flexibility. There are other available computer programs which have been
recently developed for tunnel design in both soft ground and rock. Due to their recent
development they have not gained wide acceptance. For completeness, they will be cited
later in this chapter.

The program selected for a parametric study of the impact of geotechnical

parameters on analytical tunnel lining design was STRUDL. It was selected for its ease of
input, flexibility, and accessibility. The model used was a simple circular tunnel lining,
selected to minimize effects due to causes other than the variation of the parameter
being studied. The ground conditions and lining dimensions were selected to represent
typical geologic conditions with the approximate support that would be used. It is not the
intent of this chapter to present a. set of results that can be directly applied to a design
project but rather to show the various effects certain parameters have on the design and
what the magnitude of that effect may be. In this sense, this study is applicable to any
tunnel lining designed for structural purposes.

Comparisons of axial forces and moments under the various parametric

combinations are made for:

® cast-in-place concrete in soft ground,

« cast-in-place concrete in transition material,

© cast-in-place concrete in rock, and

a flexible steel in soft ground.

The parameters whose influence was studied for these linings were:

© depth of cover,

unit weight of the surrounding material,

« coefficient of lateral (earth or rock) pressure*

® position of the water table, and

® modulus of subgrade reaction (where applicable).

84
These are the parameters that typically appear in the design procedures used for major
tunneling projects.

The computer program used was McDonnell Douglas Automation Company's

(MCAUTO) ICES version of STRUDL
( Stru ctural Design Language). The basis for this
program is "a static, linear analysis of a structure considered as an elastic lumped-
parameter system. The analysis is performed by the stiffness (displacement) method,
treating displacements as unknowns" (MCAUTO, 1976).

The input parameters for the computer (MCAUTO, 1979) analysis consisted of the
following:

Type of structure

Joint conditions

Member incidences

Member properties

Boundary conditions

Loading conditions

Output format

The type of structure must be specified to ensure the matrices are proportioned for the
proper displacement modes. The structural types which can be analyzed by this version of
STRUDL are:

Plane frame

Plane truss

Space frame

Space truss

Plane grid (loads and deformations are out of the plane)

Plate bending

The joint coordinates must be input for use in defining the size and shape of the
structure and the component members. A joint can be input into a local or global
coordinate system whose origin can be defined by either the user or the program. The
form of the coordinate system can be designated by the user as either cylindrical or
spherical or the default form, cartesian coordinate system, can be used. The joints must
also be designated as free (no external displacement constraints) or as a suppori (fixed
against displacement except where modified by joint releases). The boundary conditions
can then be defined by using joint releases on those designated as supports. Joints can be
released to form pinned joints about one or more axes, pinned joints partially restrained by
rotational or linear springs of a specified stiffness, or to create roller supports with no
resistance to deformation along a designated axis.

85
 Members are defined by designating their incidence between joints and their
structural properties. The elements can have properties in any one of five forms:
prismatic, variable, tabulated (varied according to a given set of properties), pipe, or
curved. The member properties required for execution are the cross sectional area, the
moment of inertia, a measure of the modulus of elasticity, and Poisson's ratio.

The loading conditions can then be defined for the structure. The loading which
can be applied to the structure at the nodes or to the members can be concentrated,
uniformly distributed, linear, or any combination of these. Numerous loads and load
combinations can be applied to the structure each time the program is run to minimize the
computer time involved in forming the matrices required to perform the analyses. The
output can then be specified and the results will be presented in a convenient format. The
structural responses to be output, i.e., loads, stresses, strains and/or displacements must
be specified. Any one or all can be output.

The program is based on linear material properties for ail components of the
structural system. This created a slight problem in the attempt to model the subgrade
reaction. Since the bonding between the liner and the soil is not always complete and the
tensile strength of soil and rock is much less than the compressive strength, resistance is
only offered by the subgrade to outward displacement of the lining. In order to achieve
this, the springs had to be removed from the joints which moved inward. This involved
executing the program checking the direction of the lining deformation and removing or
adding springs where necessary and re-executing the program. A non-linear mode is
currently being developed for this version of STRUDL by MCAUTO. Although it was
available for use, at the present time the costs involved far exceeded those incurred by
using the trial and error approach.

We were concerned with the axial forces and moments which are developed in the
linings in response to various loads imposed upon them. These loading conditions are those
selected by designers to be representative of the worst conditions to which a tunnel
section could ever be subjected to. The sophistication of the computer model could easily
be increased, but not without an equal increase in the amount and detail of the normally
available subsurface investigation.

Along a tunnei section there is usually some variation in ground conditions. Even if
intensive analyses were performed at locations along the length of the tunnel, the most
conservative conditions would be selected and used for design. Changing the lining
thickness, or type, can only be economically justified for radical changes in ground
conditions over relatively long lengths. Detailed analyses which attempt to model, as
accurately as possible, ground-lining interaction can only be economically justified for
portions of the project which have the potential to present great difficulties during
construction and/or service. Typical examples would be: (1) subway stations where a
large chamber is to be excavated, (2) zones of extremely undesirable conditions where
intensive subsurface exploration has been performed, or (3) research sections where
behavioral studies of soil-structure interaction are to be performed. The first two are
justifiable since the analysis may help avoid structural problems during, and after,
construction. The third example gives insight into the causes of loading and are of great
help in selecting the loading conditions for less sophisticated design models.

The lining models used are shown in Figure 27 and the member properties are
listed in Table IU. Each model will be discussed separately in the corresponding section
along with the parametric comparisons.

86
FIGURE 27 LINER MODELS USED IN THE STUDY

87
 TABLE Ik

PROPERTIES USED FOR LINING MODELS

& Oi H </, 1? £ c
<u
u.
^
i-
13
.-;
0J
V.
M
4H
u U 4- U o
c c <u c oo
o o t: o
U u 5 U .5
<u"£ 0J ^ o u
U 3 u c (J cu
c
J3 o rd o J2
Gr
-in-PJ -in-PJ ansiti

ft
*-> M ° * w2
i/) f— o
/i \
03 ,- m CO
4)

U .5 U .5 U.S Eo
1
Thickness 15.0 12.0 12.0 0.5/1.0*
(in.)

Cross-sectional Area 180.0 1*4.0 144.0 10.27

(in.
2
)

Moment of Inertia 3375.0 1728.0 1728.0 32.16

(in.")

Modulus of
Elasticity (psi) 3,600,000 3,600,000 3,600,000 2,900,000

*1
Skin Thickness/Flange Thickness of Liner Plate

88
 The properties used for the lining models (Table 14 ) are typical values for tunnel
liners in the geologic conditions modeled. They were obtained during the study conducted
for Chapter 5. The cross sectional areas and moments of inertia are calculated assuming
an uncracked one foot length of tunnel. The concrete is assumed to have no structural
reinforcing, and any intrusion of the temporary lining into the final lining is neglected.

4.2 APPROACH
The evaluation of the impact of geotechnical parameters on analytical tunnel lining
design presented subsequently are based on a finite-element-parametric analysis of a
tunnel support model using the computer program STRUDL.

4.3 CAST-IN-PLACE CONCRETE LINING IN SOFT GROUND

The configuration used to model the response of a cast-in-place concrete lining in

soft ground is shown in Figure 27a. The modei consists of a three-quarter ring made up
of 18 beam elements, each being the secant to a 15 arc. The invert was not considered in
the analysis since it is much stiffer than the lining walls and roof, and not of regular
shape. These linings are considered rigid relative to the surrounding material, and
therefore are designed disregarding any confining effects of that material. Due to this, no
consideration of the modulus of subgrade reaction for the soft ground will be made.

The loads acting on the lining represent the full weight of the overburden. No
arching action has been taken into consideration in following with standard design
practice.

The that was modeled was the effect of increasing the depth of
first variation
cover on the axial force the lining (Figure 28).
in Note: Figures 28 to 61 are graphical
presentations of the results obtained from the computer analyses run for this volume. The
depth of cover was varied from approximately 25 to 100 feet for unit weights of the
overburden of 115 and 135 pounds per cubic foot. The full effect of the depth of cover
was considered with no reductions for arching action, and the coefficient of lateral earth
pressure (K) used was 0.45. The figure clearly shows a direct linear relationship between
the depth of cover, the unit weight of the material and the axial force developed. The
crown force is approximately 58% of the maximum which occurs at the springline. An
approximate relationship (- 2%) between depth of cover, the unit weight of the material
and the maximum axial force is:

P * m.v
a IlldX
= ^(0.0099 D„ + 0.023) -(4-1)
C

where

?! = unit weight of overburden (pcf

D = depth of cover (ft)

P = maximum axial force (kips)

There are also linear relationships between the maximum, crown and springline
moments, and the depth of cover (Figure 29). The maximum moment occurs at the base
of the ring. The relationship between the various moments remains nearly constant
within the range of D studied, with that at the crown being 50.5 (- 0.1%), and at the

89
 UJ
o
<
_J
Q_
1

o 1-
1

C\i
co
<
<
or
o o
o li_

UJ
>
o
o
CO
CL u.
o *: o
00 *-*
X
UJ h-
o
or
Ql
UJ
o Q
u.
X
o _j h-
0? < £
X
<
FORCE

ND
o _J 3
-sf
AXIA
GRO

OF OFT

S
o
CM IN

VARIATION

LINER

28.

(Id) °G **J3A0D dO Hld3Q

FIGURE

90
 .

IxJ
o
<
_J
I Q_
I I

I o 2
o I

U. U_ C\J

«=r U O
CL Q_
CO
<
^ in
— rO IT)

X ~— <
< ii ii

o ce
s >^ X C£>
e
^
CO
ce
UJ
O D CL >
o
1
o
H
o U_ u_
CM
— •*~*
o
t- X
(-
Q.
UJ
UJ
o Q
^ X
o h-
00
W
GROUND

OMENT

o 2h
OF SOF

IN

VARIATION

D LINER

O o o o
CO CO CM

(id) °a 'U3AO0 do Hidda

29.

FIGURE

91
springline being 46.1 (- 0.1%) percent of the maximum. The relationship (-2%) between
depth of cover, unit weight and maximum moment is:

Fvl = *(0.0163D - 0.055)—-- —-__-— (4.2)

max c

where

% = unit weight of overburden (pel)

D = depth of cover (ft)

Mm
max = maximum moment (ft-kips)
v

The effect of the coefficient of lateral earth pressure on the axial force in the
lining isshown in Figure 30 Increasing the coefficient of lateral earth pressure has little
.

effect on the axial force at the springline, but has considerable effect on that at the
crown., The axial force in the crown increases linearly with the coefficient of lateral
earth pressure. At K = l, the crown force approaches the force in the lining at the
springline. The coefficient of lateral earth pressure has a significant effect on the
maximum axial force developed in the liner as well. The location of the maximum axial
force changes, with increasing coefficient of lateral earth pressure, from the springline to
a point midway between the crown and springline. Its magnitude also increases with
increasing coefficient. The rate of increase is slow for K < 0.6, above which it approaches
the rate that the axial force at the crown is increasing.

The effect of varying the coefficient of lateral earth pressure on the moment in
the lining (Figure 31) is more dramatic than that on the axial force. As the coefficient
increases there are large immediate reductions in the moments. When the coefficient
equals one, the moments throughout the lining approach zero. This is very significant
because it shows the range of variation of the coefficient of lateral earth pressure, in the
field, can have a dramatic effect on the maximum moment. This variation can be due to
overconsolidation before excavation for the tunnel, due to geologic conditions, or due to
the effects of the construction itself. The condition, both strength and stress, of the
ground adjacent to the opening is highly dependent on the excavation process and the
coefficient of lateral earth pressure is dependent on these.

Variation of the position of the groundwater table has no significant effect on the
axial force developed in the lining (Figure 32). Linings are generally designed to resist
the maximum axial force which is largely unaffected by the position of the groundwater
table. The greatest effect occurs at the crown where a change in the position of the
water table from the springline to kO feet over the crown causes an increase in the axial
force of approximately 10 percent. The maximum axial force which occurs at the
springline is not affected by the location of the groundwater table. When one considers
the effect of the position of the groundwater tabie on the loading conditions, the behavior
shown in Figure 32 is as would be expected. As the groundwater level rises, the vertical
total stress does not increase nearly as much as the lateral stress. Due to this, the effect
on the springline axial force, which is the maximum in the lining will be minimal. On the
other hand, the lateral total stress is significantly affected by an increase in the
groundwater level which leads to the effects shown for the axial force at the crown. This
effect on the total stress is similar (though through a different medium) to an increase in
the coefficient of lateral earth pressure.

92
 or
<
UJ
o -I
u_H <
^
±i ^ U ii~
QT
UJ

So
< 3
QC CL '*
O o u_
O
or
C\)
CD

oo
rr to

o CO
n UJ
o o
o OT i±j

UJ
UJ
( > X
or h-
o
u Xo
UJ

o h- <
i
_l
00 < £ 0L
X
<
I
UJ
o
0T
O
U_ I-
I

co
o -J <
CD <o
X
< or
u. o
o u_
O 2 UJ
o O or
Q £«
!± CO
or uj
< or
> a
1 o
CM
o o o o o o
o 00 CO C\J ro
d d d d UJ
or
* '3UnSS3Ud H1HV3 -|\/U31VT 30 1N3I0I33300 z>
o
u_

93
 UJ
or
3
CO
CO
UJ
o:
q_
X
I-
q:
<
UJ

<
UJ

<
Q
-J
z
U_
CO oO
CL
o
UJ
o U-
u_ CO
o
u.
h-
Z UJ
o
LLJ
o
o X uj

UJ
o
s- 5
"^ Z
u_
7
2 CO

<<
o o o o o < O
> a:
o
_
GO iQ sr CM
o o o o
X '3UnSS3Ud HldV3 "1VU31V1 30 ±N3!0!33300 ro

UJ

94
 o
D

o
o u_
UJ
_J
m
<
uj
o
(NJ

g , —— § . - -B --.- — r=-=Q=§
x
U_
o o
o
en o
9: P
— o§
UJ °-0
o O UJ (T
D" 00

X u_
< h-O
—
UJ UJ —
u_ o
U_ I CD
lO
Z <3
^ lO o
lO C
N
«sT
CJ
- o"
O q: x
1
" cr cl < <UJ
O << _l

OD Qo
"O O I

o
—

O o O o o
CO
CVJ

€ UJ
(Id) *Q 3"18V1 d3±VM dO NOIJLISOd

95
 The same reasoning helps explain the decrease in moment (Figure 33), with
increase of the groundwater over the crown. The most radical changes occur, as before,
when the water table position varies between the springiine and 40 feet over the crown.
Using the analogy to an increase in the coefficient of lateral earth pressure, as the
difference between the total vertical and total horizontal stresses applied to the lining
decrease so do the induced moments. The moments can never decrease to the level
reached when the coefficient of lateral earth pressure is one (K = i.O) in soils above the
water table, as in Figure 31, since the actual K here is 0.45.

It should be kept in mind that these discussions pertain to the effects of these

variables on tunnel lining design only. While there is no effect on design moments, as
shown in Figure 33 , for an increase in groundwater elevation from below the invert to the
springiine, the implications for construction can be major.

Non-cohesive soils above the groundwater level are often partially saturated. The
water within the pores imparts an apparent cohesion to the soil which will increase the
standup time and therefore greatly facilitate excavation. If these same soils are
completely saturated, e.g., tunnel moves into an area where the groundwater is at a level
above the invert, they can become flowing ground which can inundate the tunnel and
everything in it.

4,4 CAST-IN-PLACE CONCRETE LINING IN TRANSITION MATERIAL

Figure 27b shows the model used for the cast-in-place lining in transition
materials. Transition materials are those between residual soil and rock. As in the
previous case, the lining model consists of 18 beam elements and 19 nodes (joints) with the
invert considered completely rigid. The lining thickness for this case is 12 inches, the
properties are as shown in Table 14.

Unlike the lining in soft ground, the response of the surrounding material is of
significance in this case. The subgrade reaction was modeled using elastic springs acting
in a direction normal to the lining at the nodes. The springs were allowed to act only in
compression, and the effective subgrade modulus (k) was varied from 10 to 40 ksf/in.

The effect of varying the depth of cover and the unit weight on the axial force
developed in the lining is shown in Figure 34. The depth of cover was varied between
approximately 25 and 100 feet with the unit weights of overburden of both 115 and 140 pcf
being used. The relative relationships between crown, springiine and maximum axial
forces are similar to those for the soft ground case. For a subgrade modulus of 10 ksf/in.
the maximum occurs at the springiine, and the axial force at the crown is approximately
63 percent of the maximum. The relationship between the depth of cover, unit weight, and
maximum axial force is:

pa ™ = ?(G.0101 Dc + 0.0348) —--(4-3)

a max

where:

% - unit weight of overburden (pcf)

D = depth of cover (ft)

P_ = maximum axial force (kips)

Y
max
96
 '

cc
o
u_
iu
Ld _j
CD
PCF FT FT. <
h-
RINGLIN
25 100 o
115 0.45
OWN
XIMUM
o ce
= = CO UJ
ii
(T
ii
Q_ <l o o
x* O CD ^Q O <
UJ

o X
h-
CD
li_
—-
CD
o
9: ^
I

O CO
O
- o- <NJ O
CL
UJ
UJ X
O o
CO
o 35-
CD

O- —a —
uj £
UJ
O o
Li. <
O _l
z
o I

Si!
o or co
<<
o O O o o >o
CD CD C\J
I

(id) *a 'diavi d3ivM do Nouisod

ro

UJ

O
u.

97
 UJ
o
<
_J
Q.
I

h-
co
<
o
cc

2
cc
uj
>
o
o
U_
CO
o
CL

o CL
UJ
<T>
UJ
o
O
O
U_
WITH
RIAL

ujW
° I
*I2
o
_J O

-E
U_ <
o cc
oz
< cc
Ew
< ?
> _i

ro

UJ
cc
=>
e>
u_
(Id) °G 'H3AO0 dO H±d3G

98
for

K = 0.45 (coefficient of lateral earth pressure)

k = 10 ksf /in. (modulus of subgrade reaction)

Increasing the subgrade modulus causes an increase in the axial force. Increasing
k by 300 percent (i.e., from k = 10 ksf/in. to k = 40 ksf/in.) increases the maximum
axial force only 7 percent. This increase also causes a notable difference between the
maximum axial force and that at the springline. The relationship between the modulus
of subgrade reaction and the axial force is not linear and, therefore, k does not readily
lend itself to inclusion in_ correlation equations between P , t and D . The
corresponding equation for k = 40 ksf/in. is:

P
a max
= 1 (0.0109 D c +0.0313) (4-4)

The effect of varying the depth of cover and moment developed in the lining is
shown in Figure 35 As with the axial force, the relative relationships between the
.

crown, springline and maximum moment

are similar to that for the soft ground case.
The moment approximately 42 percent and that at the crown is
at the springline is
approximately 51 percent of the maximum moment. The relationships between depth of
cover, unit weight, and maximum moment are:

M max 1 (0.0120 D - 0.0409) (4-5)

for

k = 10 ksf/in.

and

M ™.
IT13.X
= * (0.0072 D
C
- 0.0260) -(4-6)

for

k = 40 ksf/in.

The terms are as defined earlier and the conditions are the same as for the equations
for axial force. The correlations between unit weights for these equations are not as
good as the previous ones. While for a unit weight of overburden ( ? ) of 115 pcf, the
error is less than one percent; for tf =140 pcf the error approaches 3.5 percent. The
effect of the modulus of subgrade reaction on the moment is much greater than it had
been on the axial force. For the same increase (300 percent) in the modulus there is a
moment reduction of 40 percent. The effects of the depth of cover on the axial force
and moment are dependent on the modulus of subgrade reaction. As the modulus
increases, the effect of the depth of cover (D ) and the unit weight of overburden
( 1 ) on the axial force increases slightly while the same increase in modulus causes a

significant reduction in moment.

99
 UJ
o
ll: ll a:
<
uT. _l
a)w cocn
:*::*: ^
Q.
^r.

I —OQ
— Q
O . <t
!l
<tf"
II
o
o
z
j| II
1

CM h-
L*: b* La: L*
c/>

Qt5 CD GO" 05
<
LLi
U_ U_ Li.. U_ <
Q
1=.
^o ooo
m 3 Q. Q. O.CL O o
<fr RINGL S mOmo U_
O OWN
X=1 -5 cr
ii
cr cl <lii ii ii n CO
UJ
^O (f) :> X X X X >
l
o
o
u_
O U_ o
n o o —
CVJ
X
»™
I—
2 CL -I
UJ <
UJ

O
SE °E
X UJ
o S h- h-
=r <I
00 to M
OMENT
SITION

_ <K- o s2
OF TRA

IN

VARIATION

LINER

(Id) 'U3A00 H±d3Q

35.

GURE

30
 The effect of variation inthe coefficient of lateral earth pressure (K) on the axial
force is shown in Figure 36 . Inthe transition materials, unlike the soft ground, there is
a reduction in the axial force at the springline with increasing coefficient of lateral earth
pressure (K). But the crown force still increases with the coefficient to equilibrium with
the springline at K = 1.0. The maximum axial force is located, as before, at the springline
until K exceeds 0.45. It then occurs at a point midway between the crown and springline.
As seen in Figure 36, the effect of subgrade modulus on axial force decreases with
increasing coefficient. At K=1.0 the axial force is completely independent of the

modulus. This is due to the lining being nearly in isotropic compression, which causes no
outward deformation. (Note: As previously mentioned, the modulus of subgrade reaction
is only effective in resisting compression.)

The effect of the coefficient of lateral earth pressure developed in the lining
(Figure 37) is as would be expected from the previous discussion. There is a general
decrease in moment with increasing coefficient for a given subgrade modulus. For a given
value (less than one) of the coefficient of lateral earth pressure, an increase in the
modulus of subgrade reaction causes a decrease in the moment. This effect decreases,
although slightly at first, with increasing coefficient. When the coefficient of lateral
earth pressure is one, the moment approaches zero and is independent of the modulus of
subgrade reaction. Due to the extreme variability of the nature of transition materials,
the range over which K (coefficient of lateral earth pressure) was studied was broadened
from (0.45 to 1.0) to (0.20 to 1.0) over that used for the soft ground.

The effect of the position of the water table on the axial force in a cast-in-place
liner in transition material is shown in Figure 38. The maximum axial force, which
occurs at the springline exhibits an insignificant decrease (2%) as the groundwater level
increases from the springline to 90 feet over the crown. The effect on the axial force at
the crown, which in this case occurs over a larger range distributed than in the soft ground
case, is an overall increase on the order of 26 percent for the same change in groundwater
elevation.

The effect of the position of the water table on the moment (Figure 39) is of
much more practical importance in that it affects the maximum moment. Here, for the
first time, there is noticeable influence as the groundwater rises from below the invert.
The greatest influence, though, is realized once the water table rises above the springline.
For the range from the springline to 90 feet over the crown there is a 55 percent decrease
in the moment at the springline, 53 percent decrease at the crown, and a 57 percent
decrease in the maximum. These decreases are, as stated earlier, directly related to an
increased total lateral pressure under nearly constant total vertical pressure.

4.5 CAST-IN-PLACE CONCRETE LINING IN ROCK

The lining model for the cast-in-place concrete in rock (Figure 27c) is very similar
to that used for transition materials. It consists of 18 beam elements, 19 nodes, the invert
being considered completely rigid, and elastic springs at the nodes (where necessary), to
model the subgrade reaction. As with transition materials, the resistance of the
surrounding rock mass to outward displacement of the tunnel lining must be accounted for.
Since there is also the possibility of developing a tangential component of subgrade
reaction its effect was also studied. The range over which the normal component of the
modulus of subgrade reaction was varied was from 40 ksf/in. to 100 ksf/in. with additional
analyses performed on a liner-rock interaction of 40 ksf/in. (normal component) and 20

101
—
1 — i — 1 1

Q^ o I
h-
^ or
<
UJ

—n-
u ____——
fl
-J -J

^O^. __ «»• --o

— ""
3 <
02 5
uj <£
- -o- ^-9™ " — "" — — -
o KUJ
g-=--— "JTS. CVJ

_J <
X. u.2

X-. 1-2

N\
\
8 CO
Q. 2i:
X COEFF
TRA

UJ
zz x^\ O IN
u: u:
CO CO o
O
u_
UJ (£
xE
%
CO l-z
< I -J
II II
X buj
<
GO CO
<
UJ UJ -1
z u_ u- •
o O 0-
2oo
,

z
~i f- N> CD
oz
I* <->
Emmg
« F
° oE> I M I CAST-I
" (TQ.< [ II It

* O CO 2 1 1 AXIAL

O 1
1 !
1 O FOR
OF
1 |

o a o
1 i
o
':

i
RIATION ESSURE

i 1 i i O
CVJ < <r
o o o o o c> > Q.
o
— CD <p <fr CVJ
b o d d
x '3dnss3dd rnava nvaaivn jo iNaioiddaoo £
UJ

O
u_

102
 3
CO
CO
UJ
q:
Q_
I
1-
QL
<
UJ
8
CM

LATERAL

ERIAL

i o|
1-
CO zz
Q. uj o
FICI SITI
l

O
0J
U_
COEF
TRAN

21
UJ Ss
? *- n,
o xft
2
O
CO
WIT LIN

-PLACE

VIOMENT

o z
OF
CAST-I

VARIATION A
FOR

X '3UnSS3dd H1HV3 TVU31V1 30 1N3I0I33300 37

6URE

103
 or

£
o
CO UJ
§-==" _l
m
&
or
UJ

8 I
D-. UJ
X
_JU.
^ o<
oo a. g uj
5 P5
CO
O o
UJ
Q_ z
0T
O UJ
g
o
CO
U. X
CO
< z
<
X or
<
^ uj
O U. UJ±
if)
Q. CO
If) o o £*
O CJ O ow
u. z
ii n
it M H
<
uw5
0T Q_
UJ
Xu
o << _J
O D u. a_
o i

zz
o I

< CO
o
CO
o
CO
o o
CVJ
O ><
CVJ
i

(Id) *a '318V1 U31VM dO NOIllSOd

8
UJ
or
ID
CO
u.

104
 tr
o
u_
UJ
_l
CD
o <
o
CVJ

(T
UJ

I
O UJ
CD
^~
,-»
E
»-< i

GO U_ 0C
LL O UJ
XI
z£
O
1

u_
22_
h-
<\l ^^ ^z
h-
^2
Q- h-
HI UJW
O a:
^ x \-
O \-
00 Wl IN

LINER
OMENT

o
*-
;> UJ

OF
-IN-PLAC

TION

o VARIA
CAST-

(Id) M Q '318V1 U31VM dO NOIllSOd

39.

FIGURE
ksf /in. (tangential component). As before, the springs were not included in the model at
the nodes which would cause tensile forces in them.

The study of the effects of various parameters was separated into two parts. The
the response of the liner subjected to varying degrees
first, "distributed loadings," entails
of symmetrical vertical and horizontal loads which may occur in rock tunneling. In this
section we will consider the effects of varying the vertical and horizontal loads, the
modulus of subgrade reaction, and the position of the water table. The second section,
"block loading," will study the effects of various block shapes and sizes which may move
onto the lining.

4.5.1 Distributed Loading

The rock loads only. Lateral loads on

first loading situation is for vertically applied
the lining will be due only to the resistance to displacement offered by the rock. The
results of this variation on the crown, springline, and maximum axial force for the three
conditions of rock reaction are shown in Figure 40 . In each case there is a linear
relationship between the vertical rock load and the resulting axial force. The correlation
equations between vertical rock load and the maximum axial force for the three cases are:

P = 11.25 P (4-7)
a max v

for k = 40 ksf/in.
n

P
a max = U - 68 P
v
<*-«

for k = 100 ksf/in.

n

P = 9.63 P (4-9)
a max v

for k = 40 ksf/in. and k = 20 ksf/in.

where

P = vertical rock load (ksf)

P = maximum axial force (kips)

r
a max

k = normal component of the modulus of rock reaction

n
(ksf/in.)

jt = tangential component of the modulus of rock

t reaction (ksf/in.)

Correlations between the individual equations cannot be made without a much more
extensive study than has been performed here. There are a number of interesting points
which have been made apparent. For the cases with only normal rock reactions, the
maximum axial force occurs at the springline and is greater than half the applied vertical

106
 o
<
-I
Q.
I

CD l

ZZ Z H
Z CO
<
Z ££££
CO CO CO CO
o
^^^^
« oo
if)
o o CsJ
O
O *• CM U.
O
s
o
o
CO o
ct

UJ

UJ
>
I
X
< UJ
o
cr
£
<
X
If)
<

KZ
if) if)

d
$3
(jsx) Ad 'a voi xooa ivoiih3a
$
UJ

CD

107
load (P R, where R is the radius of excavation). For the case with both normal and
tangential reactions, the maximum axial force does not occur at the springline and is less
than P R. By increasing the rock reactions 150 percent, i.e., from 40 ksf/in. to 100
V
ksf/in., the developed axial force increased 4 percent, but the addition of the tangential
component of rock reaction of k = 1/2 k reduced the maximum axial force 14.4 percent.
It would therefore be of great advantage to allow the liner to develop bonding with the
rock, rather than to isolate the two with the temporary support.

The effect of increasing the vertical rock load on the moment developed in the
lining (Figure 41) is similar to that on the axial force— simple linear relationships. An
increase in the rock load causes a proportional increase in the moment,

M max = H - X2 P
v
<«- 10 >

for k =40 ksf/in.

M max = 7.21 P
v
(4-11)

for k =100 ksf/in.

n

M max =9.51 P
v
(4-12)

for k~ = 40 ksf/in. and k~ = 20 ksf/in.

n t

where

M max = maximum induced moment (ft-kips)

r

P = vertical rock load (ksf)

k = normal component of the modulus of rock reaction

n
(ksf/in.)

k = tangential component of the modulus of rock reaction

(ksf/in.)

The interesting behavioral effects here are those due to alterations in the rock reaction.
Unlike for the axial force, the effect of the normal reaction increase on the moment is
greater than that of the addition of the tangential component. The 150 percent increase
in the normal component of rock reaction decreased the moment 39 percent, whereas the
decrease due to the addition of the normal component is only 20 percent. This would lend
credence to the positive aspects of allowing a bond to develop between the lining and the
rock surface for this should increase both the normal and tangential components. Due to
the simplicity of the model, detrimental effects due to rock-lining interaction, which may
increase the loading, cannot be studied.

The second loading case is for combined vertical and horizontal loading. The
horizontal loading will be taken as uniformly distributed and equal to one-third of the
vertically applied loading. The effects of increased loading and variations of the rock
reaction are shown in Figure 42.

108
 i

\-
cC 00
<
LJ L_.Ll.Ll.Ll.
£_ GO 00 00 GO
_j _> __ _c _c _c ID
^i ogoo
O <fr <fr CO
00
£
O Q_><
<
Q_ CL <
O
_l
__
o O
CO o
cc
00
Q_ <
__
I
o
I-
cc
lO Ld
>
X
UJ
_> =5
O
Ld
_>
O
CD
u_
o
LO

__ O
CC <
< -J
> Q.

LO o
d
A Ld
(ds>n d avoi hoou ivoii_ga (r
_0
CD

!09
 O
o
cr

00
z
-r ^ ZZZZ
CJ
o
N
z .^ co co co co
cr
o
2^^^^
u^j o
3]
z S2i
cr ><
go o
^ Z ^ 2 O ^F CM
<fr

cr q_ < Z Z Z H
ii ii M H
X
Q
Z
<
o CO be be L* lac o
CM _ <
CO
Q.
o
O D cr z
u—
>z
X -i
2 g
o
u_
UJ
o
<
UJ -J
< O Q.
cr
X I

< £
I

rico

ID

§3
m in
O
UJ
Ad 'a von aoou ~ivoi±u3a
us>n cr

LL.

110
 P = 10 ' 81 P (
" 3 ' 6%) ( ^" 13)
amax v

for k = 40 ksf/in.

P
amax
= H ' 29 P
v
(
" 3 - 3%) ^" 1 *>

for k = 100 ksf/in.

n

P
amax = 9 ' 65 P
v
<-°- 2%) " ^^
for k~ = 40 ksf/in. and k = 20 ksf/in.
n

where

P = vertical rock load (ksf)

P = maximum axial force (kips)

r
a max
k = normal component of the modulus of rock
reaction (ksf/in.)

k = tangential component of the modulus of rock

reaction (ksf/in.)

The percentages within the parentheses are the decrease in maximum axial force from the
case without applied horizontal loading to this with P. = 1/3 P .

Addition of the laterally applied loading caused significant reductions in the

induced lining moments (Figure 43). Although the magnitudes of the moments have been
reduced, the relationships between the various rock reactions are similar. The
relationships for the maximum moment as a function of rock load for the three rock
reactions are,

M max = 8 ^9 P
v
(
" 28 - 1% ) (*-!*)

for k = 40 ksf/in.
n

M max = 5.28 P
y
(-26.7%) (4-17)

for k~ = 100 ksf/in.

n

M max = 6.82 P
v
(-28.3%) (4-18)

for k = 40 ksf/in. and k = 20 ksf/in.

Ill
 *
o
o
q:
_i
<
o
N
cr
o
X
o Q
Z
CM
CO <
a.
_l

i 31
Li.
"*"*
fel
in UJ _1
— >
1-
2 x UJ
o
UJ 1- <

- o UJ |

2 (-
O< co
2o
u.
o<
z
m g£
a
or <
< o
>

to

Ul
(dsx) ^ 'avoi *oou nvoiid^A q:

S2
u.

112
where

P = vertical rock load (ksf)

M max = maximum induced moment (ft-kips)

r

k = normal component of the modulus of rock reaction (ksf/in.)

k = tangential component of the modulus of rock reaction (ksf/in.)

The percent decrease from that without horizontal loading is shown in parentheses.
This reduction in moment, unlike that of the axial force, is as would be expected in light
of the behavior when the lateral earth pressure is increased in soft ground and transition
material.

The effect of varying the ratio of lateral to vertical rock pressure (K) on the axial
force is shown in Figure 44. One noticeable point is the different responses to the
variations of the models with and without the tangential component of rock reaction. The
maximum axial force occurs at the springline when there is only normal rock reaction for
a K less than approximately 0.33. Above this, the occurrence of the maximum axial force
shifts and the difference between the maximum and springline axial force increases with
K. For the situation with both normal and tangential rock reaction the maximum and
springline force roughly parallel one another and are very insensitive to K. As before, the
significance of the rock reaction on the axial force decreases with an increasing ratio of
lateral to vertical pressure.

The effect of increasing the ratio of lateral to vertical pressure (K) on the moment
in the lining is shown in Figure 45. The moment decreases with increasing K, and as
before, the effect of the rock reaction is reduced with increasing K. This is due to the
similarity between horizontal loading and the passive rock reaction.

Since the rock load can be relatively small in comparison to the potential
hydrostatic pressure, the position of the water table can significantly affect the axial
force developed in the lining (Figure 46). From the figure it is obvious that the axial
force is almost entirely dependent on the hydrostatic loading, the range over which this is
true is dependent on the vertical rock loading.

Unlike the effect of the position of the water table on the axial force, the effect
on the moment (Figure 47) seems to have three stages. During the first stage, as the
water table rises from below the invert to the springline, there is little effect on the
crown or springline moment, but a noticeable decrease in the maximum moment. The
second stage, which occurs while the groundwater position changes from the springline to
approximately 40 feet over the crown, begins a gradual reduction in the crown moment
which continues through stage three. During stage two there is also a constant increase in
the springline and maximum moments, with a total increase of 100 and 200 percent,
respectively. Stage three, in which the hydrostatic head increases from 40 to 100 feet
over the crown, has the exact opposite effect of stage two on the springline and maximum
moments. The springline and maximum moments are the same magnitude as when the
groundwater level is at the springline.

113
 <
QC
Id

8=^-
in O
o — < a
h-
Z*
UJ O
oQ
IT*
Li-Z
—
UJ
o
co
a.
o e>
z
UJ z

o IS<
I-
rO cr
o
li-
a,
UJ i

oz
ft
CD
x o I

< u.
co
U. LU <
if U. U. U. ttt~> CVJ
CO
CO CO CO CO
£ ** : ^ X<
if) <D

o or ><
u.o
O Gl
>cr Q- < ii

z z z K
n ii M

Z UJ
bi be be !^
i i i i

O D <
?
Q_ _
Cd
CO
UJ
<
>
or
Q_

lO o lO
r*- in C\J

o O o UJ
cr
* '3HnSS3Hd 1VU31V1 dO !N3IOIdd300
S2
u.

IH
 UJ
(Z
ID
CO
CO
UJ
tT
Q_

oB in <
a:
UJ
i^- r*^ ^ l-
•
U_ U. U_ u_
CO CO CO CO
<
_i
*: x: x. x.
oooo
O
si- <fr cvj

Z Z Z
L^ be L*:
|_
be CO —^
UJ
a.
U. O
u. ac
O O « i

H UJ
o
ro U.
o
z
UJ

10 z e> ^ o
zo
» O OC ><
- CVJ UJ<
^cr a. < 2 _J
d: o co 2 OQ-
^T
°h
o<
<<
a: or

>o
<
u.

lO
l>-
o
m
in
CVJ

o c> d
UJ
4 or
X 3dnSS3dd "1VU31V1 dO lN3IOIdd303

115
 100 -

~ 60 -

UJ
_l
CD

tr
UJ

CO
O
CL

40 60
AXIAL FORCE (KIPS)

FIGURE 46. VARIATION OF AXIAL FORCE WITH THE POSITION OF THE

WATER TABLE FOR A CAST-IN-PLACE LINING IN ROCK

116
 x

100 -

FV = 0.5 KSF
k" N = 40 KSF/IN
— CROWN
— SPRINGLINE
80 -
— MAXIMUM
K='/3

- 60
Q ¥ V V V

UJ
_l
CD
& 40 Dw
or
t±J

5
Pv LJ— ^ —
fe

O
20
tX M
KP^J
CO
O
Q.

-20 -

10 15

MOMENT (FT.-KIPS)

FIGURE 47 VARIATION OF MOMENT WITH THE POSITION OF THE

WATER TABLE FOR A CAST-IN -PLACE LINING IN ROCK

117
4.5.2 Block Loading

In nature, most rock masses contain patterns of joints and fractures. The
intersections of these features can form blocks of rock which may move against a tunnel
liner with little resistance along the interface surfaces. To study the function of block
loading with respect to tunnel lining design, the effects of the four block configurations in
the WMATA design criteria on the axial forces and moments will be compared. In regard
to the individual rock block loadings, the parameters of interest are the angle of the joints
with the horizontal and the joint spacing. The strike has been assumed to parallel the
tunnel axis. For each case, the block-lining configuration is shown on the figure being
discussed.

The first block loading case is a block which is symmetrical about a line drawn
through the center of the tunnel at an angle, a to the horizontal, (a less than 90
,

degrees). Two block sizes were considered and are shown on Figures 48 and 49, axial and
moment diagrams, respectively. The angles at which the loadings were applied are 30
degrees, 45 degrees, and 60 degrees.

The effects of the block angle on the axial forces for Block Loading Case 1 are
shown in Figure 48. As can be seen in the figure, the angle at which a block of a given
size moves onto a tunnel liner has no significant effect on the axial force developed in the
lining. Although, for the larger block there is a slight decrease in the crown force, the
effect on the maximum axial force is negligible. The increase in the maximum axial force
between the two block sizes is nearly proportional to the size differential.

The effect on the block angle on the various moments developed in the lining for
the first block loading case (Figure 49) is much different from the effect on the axial
forces. For the smaller block there is a slight increase in the maximum moment as the
angle increases from 30 degrees to 60 degrees to the horizontal. The larger block shows
(Figure 49) a similar increase for the range 30 degrees to 45 degrees, but a more rapid
increase in maximum moment, between 45 degrees and 60 degrees, than the small block.
The relationship between the moment at the crown and springline is very greatly
influenced by the orientation of the block. As the angle increases from 30 degrees to 45
degrees, there is a rapid increase in the moment at the springline, and only minor
variation of the moment at the crown. As the angle approaches 60 degrees there is a
rapid decrease in the crown moment with little further effect on the moment at the
springline.

The second block loading considered is a completely non-symmetrical case. The

block is bound on its lower face by a joint that is co-linear with the center of the circle
and the other joints are then defined from the intersection of this line and the liner as
shown in Figures 50 and 51.

The effect of the block angle on the axial force developed in the lining for the
second case is shown in Figure 50 . The effect of the angle on the maximum axial force,
which occurs at the springline, is negligible. For a given block size, as the angle
increases, the axial force at the crown decreases. The interesting effect is that while the
increase in the maximum (and therefore the springline) forces due to the block size
increase are nearly proportional, the size increase and the size effect on the crown axial
force is much less and dependent on the block angle.

118
 60
CO
Ld
LU
tr \
o
bJ
Q 45 11 l
w

Ld
_I
CD
30 <3b il
CROWN
o SPRINGLINE
o
_l
MAXIMUM
GO o w= 80"d = 60"
15 - D w= 120" d =80"
IT = 40 KSF/IN

1
10 15 20
AXIAL FORCE (KIPS)

FIGURE 48. VARIATION OF AXIAL FORCE WITH DIP ANGLE FOR

BLOCK LOADING CASE 1

119
 60

UJ
UJ
(T
<3
UJ
9 45

UJ
_J
o
z 30 -DO
<
CROWN
o SPRINGLINE
o
_i
MAXIMUM
o w = 80" d = 60"
15 - D w = l20"d=60"
If =40 KSF/IN

10 15 20
MOMENT (FT.-KIPS)

FIGURE 49. VARIATION OF MOMENT WITH DIP ANGLE FOR BLOCK

LOADING CASE 1

120
 60 © V
Ld
LU
q:
a
w
S 45 9 V
«

\
UJ
_l

z 30
< - i\ i
— CROWN
-- SPRINGLINE
o
3 — MAXIMUM =60"
CO o w= 80" d

15 - D w= 120" d 80"
=

k"= 40 KSF/IN

1
10 15 20
AXIAL FORCE (KIPS)

FIGURE 50. VARIATION OF AXIAL FORCE WITH DIP ANGLE FOR

BLOCK LOADING CASE 2

121
 60
CO
LlJ
uj

a
9 45
If
L±J
_l \
CD

< 30
-z.
iie!>

CROWN
o SPRINGLINE
o
_J
MAXIMUM
GD o w = 80" d = 60"
D w = l20"d=60"
k"= 40 KSF/IN

10 15 20
MOMENT (FT. -KIPS)

FIGURE 51. VARIATION OF MOMENT WITH DIP ANGLE FOR BLOCK

LOADING CASE 2

122
 The effect of the block angle on the moment developed in the lining is shown in
Figure 51. The effect on the maximum moment is minor, but there is a slight increase
with increasing angle. The moments at the crown and springline vary in a very different
mode than their behavior in the first case. As the angle increases from 30 degrees to 45
degrees, there is a decrease in the moment at the crown, while from 45 degrees to 60
degrees there is a much more significant increase. The moment at the springline, on the
other hand, changes little for a block angle from 30 degrees to 45 degrees, but decreases
as the angle increases to 60 degrees. As with the axial force, the increase in the
maximum moment is nearly proportional to the increase in block size, while the effect on
the crown and springline moments are somewhat irregular and dependent on the block
angle.

The third block loading case is a block bound on top by a line that is co-linear with
the center of the tunnel. As before, the size considered is shown on Figures 52 and 53.

Figure 52 shows the effect of the block angle and size on the axial force developed
in the lining. There is only minor variation between the three axial forces— crown,
springline, and maximum—and for a variation in block angle between 30 degrees and 60
degrees. One notable point is that the increase in axial force with block size is not
proportional to the increase in block size.

As evident from Figure 53, the effect of the block angle on the moment in this
is

case is much more

significant than in the previous two. The variation in maximum
moment is dependent on both the block angle and the block size. The decrease in
maximum moment for the smaller block is at an ever decreasing rate, while for the larger
block it is an ever increasing rate. The effects on the crown and springline moment are
less dependent on size, but still vary with the block angle. The springline moment
decreases with increasing block angle which also increases the size effect of the block.
There is only minor increase in the crown moment as the block angle increases. As with
the axial force, although the effects are dependent on the change in block size they are
not proportional to that change.

The fourth and last block loading case considered is for a block formed by two
joints of equal dip which strike parallel to the tunnel axis and form a block that is sym-
metrical with the vertical tunnel axis. Since the joint configuration defines the block
size,each point considered represents both dip and size variation. Due to the symmetrical
nature of this loading, the relationship between the maximum axial force (which coincides
with the springline) and the crown, is very regular (Figure 54). The increase in block
angle, and therefore block size, causes an increase in axial force which occurs at an ever
increasing rate.

The maximum moment is at the crown (Figure 55). The behavior is very similar to
that of the axial force with the moment increasing at an ever increasing rate with the
increase in angle.

4.6 FLEXIBLE LINER IN SOFT GROUND

In soft ground tunneling the use of permanent flexible segmental linings is rapidly
increasing in popularity. In this study a flexible lining is one which readily deforms under
action of the surrounding ground mass to allow re-establishment of equilibrium. It is not

123
 -
60

LlI
UJ

O
LlI
Q 45 -

UJ
_l
O
-
30
CROWN
o SPRINGLINE
o
_l
MAXIMUM
CO o w= 80" d = 60"
15 - G w = l20" d=80"
k' = 40 KSF/IN

10 15 20
AXIAL FORCE ( KIPS)

FIGURE 52. VARIATION OF AXIAL FORCE WITH DIP ANGLE FOR

BLOCK LOADING CASE 3

124
 60

Ll)
UJ
<r
a
2 45

UJ
-J
o
< 30
CROWN
SPRINGLINE
3 MAXIMUM
CO o w = 80" d = 60"
5 - D w = l20"d=80"
If = 40 KSF/IN

10 15 20
MOMENT (FT.-KIPS)

FIGURE 53. VARIATION OF MOMENT WITH DIP ANGLE FOR BLOCK

LOADING CASE 3

125
 f MOKSF/IN

10 II 10

FIGURE 54. VARIATION OF fcHM&JFOKCtf WWD^lAN^Bfc^K

BU9CKNL0AG&tG 'tASE 4

126
 CROWN a
o MAXIMUM
O ,- SPRINGLINE
CD IT =40 KSF/IN

15

10 15 20
MOMENT (FT.-KIPS)

FIGURE 55. VARIATION OF MOMENT WITH DIP ANGLE FOR BLOCK

LOADING CASE 4

127
so flexible that no moments will develop, but it does lessen induced moments as will be
seen. These liners, since they can be rapidly erected in the tail of a shield, save the two-
step process of temporary then permanent liner installation. The model used here is that
shown in Figure 27d. Here the full 360-degree ring is considered to consist of elements
of uniform cross section with normal spring reactions used to model the subgrade reaction.
The modulus of subgrade reaction (k) will be studied for values of 5 and 20 ksf/in. for unit
weights of the overburden ( is ) of 115 and 135 pcf.

Figure 56 shows the effects of combined variations of the depth of cover, the
modulus of subgrade reaction, and the unit weight of the material. The relationship
between depth of cover and axial force is linear for all combinations at the crown,
springline, and the maximum. The correlation equations for the maximum axial force with
the depth of cover are:

P = 1.40D + 6.28 (f-

x 19)
amax c '

for 1 = 115 pcf and k = 5 ksf/in.

P
amax
=1.WD c + 6.04 (4-20)

for 1 = 115 pcf andk = 20 ksf/in.

P
amax
= 1.71 Dc + 3.79 (4-21)

for 1 = 135 pcf and k = 5 ksf/in.

P
amax
= 1.75 Dc + 7.04 (4-22)

for H = 135 pcf andk = 20 ksf/in.

Unlike the rigid liner in soft ground, there is not a linear relationship for unit
weight between the maximum axial forces. Both the increase in subgrade reaction and
unit weight increase not only the axial force for a given depth of cover but also the rate
at which the axial force increases with depth.

The effect of depth of cover, modulus of subgrade reaction, and unit weight on the
moment developed in the lining is shown in Figure 57. The influences on the moment
are slightly different from those on the axial force. The relationship between depth of
cover and the moment for each case is linear,

M ™,
maxv = °- 6 ^ D c^ " 1-^7 (4-23)

for V = 115 pcf and k = 5 ksf/in.

M max = 0.66 D
c
+ 0.50 (4-24)

for 1 = 135 pcf and k = 5 ksf/in.

128
 or

z
ZZZZ
UJ
CO CO CO CO
-I
^* *: * m
O x
UJ

tr
o
u.
oc
s UJ
>
o
o
u.
o
o 2 X
Q.
UJ
Q
UJ
o
cr
o
-8 -J
UJ
O
< £E
X O
< u.

o X
CD <Q z
u.
oO a:
o
O < u.
o
or co

5?
CO
in
o o o o o
o CD CD CO UJ
cr
(Id) °Q 'U3A00 dO Hld3Q O
u.

129
 _J
CO

U_U.Ll.U_ X
UJ
CO CO CO CO _l
CO __:__:-
u_
OiOO o

o
-c-
in
«-.
__>
CsJ CM o <
ii n II II

_d_ or
be b_ !__ b_
o
u_
s < (0 CD cC oB
_> UJ or
Z U- U_ u_ u_
CO
_J OOoo UJ
>
^a" zz Q. a. Q. a. o o
=5 u
"~
l»m
ro ro
00
u
O cr __
u.
Q- Q. ii ii n n
U CO >s >N >^ ^
CO
a. o
X
i
r-
H CL
D <3 O o U_ LLJ
Q
CO
1- X
z h-
UJ
_§E *Q
O b-z
z
_5 =>
o uj o
,

st
GR
MOM

OF SOFT

N
o Oz1
OJ

VARIATI

LINER

O o o O O o 57
O CO CD

(id) °a 'U3aoo do Hidda

GURE

130
 M mav
max = 0-351 D„c - 0.767 (4-25)

for 3= 115pcfandk = 20 ksf/in.

M max = 0Ai3 D c " 0,90 ° " ( ^" 26)

for i= 135pcf,k = 20 ksf/in.

The relative effects of the unit weight of overburden and modulus of subgrade reaction on
the moment are the reverse of that on the axial force. The effect of the variation in the
subgrade reaction on the moment is greater than for the axial force, while the effect of
the unit weight is less. An increase in the unit weight increases the moment, while an
increase in the subgrade reaction decreases the induced moments.

The effect of variation in the coefficient of lateral earth pressure (K) on the axial
force the lining is shown in Figure 58.
in As K approaches 1.0, the crown and springline
axial forces approach one another, and the effect of the modulus of subgrade reaction
decreases. The maximum axial force increases with increasing K.

The effect of varying K on the moment in the flexible lining is shown in Figure
59. For the range of approximately 0.45 to 0.65, the maximum moment occurs at the
crown. From this point until about K = 0.85, the difference between the maximum and
crown moments increase steadily. For soft ground with k = 5 ksf/ in., the moment is fairly
constant between K = 0.85 and 1.0. However, for k = 20 ksf/in., the maximum moment
continues to decrease through this range, though at a slower rate than for K less than
0.85.

The effect of the position of the water table on the axial force can be seen in
Figure 60. There is little change as the groundwater varies from the invert to
approximately 20 feet over the crown. From this point, as the depth of the groundwater
increases, there is a constant but slight decrease in the maximum axial force with a
corresponding increase in the axial force at the crown. The axial force at the springline is
independent of the position of the groundwater, and the effect of the modulus of subgrade
reaction is nearly constant for all positions of the groundwater level.

The effect of the position of the groundwater table on the moment developed in the
flexible lining is shown in Figure 61 . The effects are minimal until the groundwater
level rises above the springline. As the groundwater level rises beyond this point, there is
a constant decrease in the moment which, unlike the axial force, does not seem to be
independent of the modulus of subgrade reaction (k). The decrease in moment with
increased depth of the groundwater is lessened with an increased k.

4.7 OTHER COMPUTER METHODS IN TUNNEL DESIGN

The computer programs STRESS, STRUDL and SAP are currently used for tunnel
liner design. These programs have been used for a period of time and have established
their feasibility for use in design. However, there are more recently developed programs
which have not gained wide acceptance. These programs wiil be cited in this section.

131
 x
ar
<
UJ
o
CO
<
or
UJ
I-
UJ ^> <
z
= 2co u_ u_
co
-J 3* :*
o o
>=3 CVJ

g£ < - -
O CO 2 !* L* uj o
7* O
CO
-a O D o CL UJ u_
--o
o
OoCO

UJ UJ
o I
or or
X UJ
o e I- z
"--a
x UJW
>o < or m
UL ijj

o
CD
x<
«or
oo
u_
u.

O z UJ
o or
idooi = °a
ro
3
CO
fe
CO
0T UJ
<
>
or
o_

00 CO CVJ
o" d o d s
UJ
» '3HriSS3Ud H1UV3 1VU31V1 30 1N3I0I33300 or

132
 or
<
UJ
-i
UJ
7
v. >.
LL. U.
<
a:
UJ
o H
<
o L
CVJ

K CL < " " OF

O CO 2 !x !*
GROUND

ENT

D o M»
00 yi-
EFF SOF
CO
Q.
5
i

UJ k
o
CD
U. iy
K-Z
H
z XJ
h- UJ
UJ
2 ^ -J
U-
o o 1- x
a,
m C/) O 2 FLE

"O
MOMEN

A
FOR
OF

o Z UJ
CM o cc
idooi=°a IATI SSU

QC UJ
< or
> a.

^°--i ^-o-i- [

<3"
CD CD C\J

C> O' O* d s
UJ
x '3bnss3Hd KiavB "ivusivi jo in3I0UJ300 tr

CD

133
 o
CD

O
lO

-O

<j- <J—
o-- <] <]
o
CM
CO
a.
o-
o- -o— o o
U UJQ
o Xz
£ xO
<» _i £ e>

U_ U_ U- Ll_
, omQio <
O OC\J
CM
II II ' "
o o oQo o
LU
qd Q i
CD
Z ^ z z zz
_l
z CD 3 ifcfcu:
•£ *L 2 CO CO CO CO ©
o rr X *::*::*::*: =8F=B
cr Q. < mioOO
o CO ^ CM CM O
be be be be

O D < O

O o o o o O
CO
GO (0 CM CM
I

UJ
(id) *a 'aaivMQNnoao do Nomsod
o
Li_

134
 &
u
_J
CD

<r
UJ

I
o
o
CO
o
o.

40 60 80
MOMENT ( FT-KIPS)

FIGURE 61. VARIATION OF MOMENT WITH THE POSITION OF THE WATER

TABLE FOR A FLEXIBLE LINER IN SOFT GROUND

135
 It should also be noted that the COSTUN (Tunnel Cost Estimating Program) is

currently being used for estimating the construction cost of the tunnel-shaft system
(Wheby, et al., 1974). With this program, it is said to be possible to evaluate the cost
implications of the various methods of construction or alignments without detailed designs
or quantity estimates.

4.7.1 Studies Using Potential Computer Programs for Tunnel Design in Soft Ground

Paul, et al. (1974), proposed a linear finite element computer program to predict
the interaction of a circular liner with surrounding medium. Results are plotted in the
form of dimensionless quantities from which moment, thrust, shear, and deformation can
be estimated. They also used a piecewise linear option in the NASTRAN program to
simulate the concrete liners and steel ribs in soil opening.

Ranken and Ghaboussi (1975), used the finite element program GEOSYS to analyze
the stress and deformation around advancing tunnels. The three-dimensional problem is
modeled with axisymmetric finite elements. Both linear-elastic and elasto-plastic soil
strength behaviors are considered in the analysis. Results are plotted in dimensionless
quantities.

Ranken and Ghaboussi (1976), utilized a two-dimensional finite element computer

program to study the behavior and interaction of two parallel circular tunnels. Depth of
burial, tunnel spacing, and construction sequence are the system variables, and they are
considered in detail. The soil mass is assumed to be homogeneous, isotropic, and
continuous with a free-field stress system corresponding to the self-weight of the medium
and K=0.5. Also, both linear-elastic and elasto-plastic medium behavior are considered.
Results are plotted in dimensionless quantities.

Clough, et al. (1977), developed and verified a general purpose finite element code
for analysis of grouted tunnels. The code contains plane strain and axisymmetric options,
which allow economic study of the major variables influencing grouted tunnel behavior.
The program can accommodate heterogeneous soils, groundwater conditions, non-uniform
initial stress field, non-linear soil response, and variations in tunneling construction
sequences and procedures. Based on the plane strain type of analysis, the predicted
surface settlements and subsurface displacements of the soil mass around tunnels are
consistent with those actually measured in a number of cases.

4.7.2 Studies Using Potential Computer Programs for Tunnel Design in Rock

Isenberg (1973), based on a number of finite element theories and computer

technology, developed a computer program analyzing general three-dimensional structures
and cavities in rock. The program considers anisotropic, nonlinear, and time-dependent
material properties, as well as the effects of rock joints, gravity loading, and construction
sequence. This program is applicable to handle various types of structures in rock; thus, if
used in the design of tunnels with several joint sets, it may result in very high computation
costs.

Daeman (1975) developed a strain-softening dilatant finite element continuum to

represent the (failing) rock mass. A three-dimensional axisymmetric finite element
analysis was used to study the influence of the face tunnel support loading. A two-
dimensional plane strain model was developed in which excavation is simulated through
progressive unloading of the tunnel periphery. In this analysis, the computer program
TUNSUP (Tunnel Support Analysis Program) is utilized to represent the support action.
Some results are plotted for ready reference.

136
 Ranken, et al. (1978), extended their finite element analysis to examine the
ground-linear interaction resulting from localized gravity loading condition. This
loading condition is to simulate rock block loading and applies to only a portion of the
liner circumference. The two-dimensional (polar coordinate), plane strain, linear elastic
finite element methods were utilized for a circular tunnel. Results are plotted in
dimensionless quantities.

Kulhawy (1979) performed a preconstruction analysis for the effect of multiple

tunnel and chamber openings on one another. A two-dimensional finite element method
was utilized to predict the stress and displacement. The computed displacements for
the pilot tunnel agree well with extensometer measurements, and, as predicted, no
fallouts occurred in the actual research chamber. The geological environment,
geometric factor, rock-support interaction, in-situ stress condition, linear elastic rock
mass behavior, and construction sequence are considered in the finite element analysis.

Azzouz, et al. (1979), performed a three-dimensional finite element analysis to

study the ground behavior of the Atlanta Research Chamber. Based on information
from subsurface investigation, the static isotropic linear elastic option of the ADINA
(Automatic Dynamic Incremental Nonlinear Analysis) program was employed for the
analysis. The entire rock mass was assumed to be homogeneous with elastic properties
E=4.6 x 10 psi and v =0.17. The predicted displacement on the vertical plane along
the chamber's longitudinal axis, by three-dimensional analysis, agreed with inclinometer
measurements.

Gartung, et (1979), reviewed a fully three-dimensional finite element stress-

al.
strain analysis of asubway tunnel in Nuremberg. Based on subsurface investigation
information and experience, the rock mass is modeled by a homogeneous, isotropic
continuum, and the stress-strain relationship expressed as a nonlinear elastoplastic
is
constitutive law. The equal to the weight of overburden and
in situ vertical stress is
K=0.3. No groundwater influences are considered in the analysis. The effect of steel
ribs is neglected. Tensioned, short rock bolts are considered as an equivalent internal
pressure. The shotcrete is modeled by steel elements with linearly elastic properties
which depend on the age of the shotcrete. The tunnel excavation is simulated in
accordance with the basic construction sequence. The computer program PAM-NL is
utilized for the analysis, and results of the analyses are plotted and summarized. A
monitoring program has been set up according to information from the analyses.
However, the actual measured information is not reported in the paper, and comparison
of the predicted displacement or stress cannot be made.

4.8 SUMMARY
The parameters required for the analytical design of tunnel liners, based on a
review of theories currently in use, are (1) depth of cover, (2) unit weight of the ground
through which the tunnel is advanced, (3) the coefficient of lateral earth pressure, (4)
the position of the water table and (5) the modulus of subgrade reaction. The relative
importance of these parameters is shown in Table 15 . This rating is based upon
computer analyses; it cannot be quantitatively justified. However, an attempt was
made to realistically rate the parameters with regard to the range within which they
may vary for a given tunnel section.

One point that is important to note is that a given parameter can have a very
different effect on the maximum axial force and the maximum moment for the same
lining. This can be seen in a number of places such as the effect of the unit weight on

137
 <

TABLE 15

RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF THE VARIOUS PARAMETERS STUDIED

ON THE MAXIMUM AXIAL FORCE (P a AND THE MAXIMUM MOMENT (M)
)

<D
o
Ui (TJ

<u i_
0)
i_ i_ +-> DO
<D HHD rt .a
> c
O CO 3
O M 5*
U .c
60 C k-i
M-l
o
cm
mO qj a, o
'aJ
u — c
o S3 o
.c se 5 2 vU
—3 >
.^
+->

a. •M
•as
+-9
5
T3
u
(d
<L> c q nj O O a;
Q D UJ CL
(T3

H 2o<

Cast-in-place P 1 3 2 4 N/A
a
Concrete in
Soft Ground M 1 4 2 3 N/A

Cast-in-place P 1 3 2 5 *
a
Concrete in
Transition M 2 5 1 3 *

2 2
Cast-in-place P 2 2 4 1 3
a
Concrete in
2 2
Rock 1 M 2 2 1 4 3

Flexible Liner P 1 2 3 5 k
a
In Soft
Ground M 3 5 1 * 2

1. For the cast-in-place lining in rock only the distributed loading effects are included in
the table.

2. For the rock loadings, it is a combination of rock unit weight and effective depth of
loading which is considered. Therefore, this rating represents the effect of the
vertical rock load.

NOTE: "1" represents the most significant to design, while "5" represents the least significant.

138
flexible liner in soft ground and the coefficient of lateral pressure on the cast-in-place
liner in rock. The significance of the depth of cover D may or may not be overstated in
this analysis due to the fact that no arching action is assumed to have developed. This is
in keeping with current design practice though for a single highway tunnel, or two tunnel
widely spaced tunnels, it may be conservative.

In relation to the block loading cases, it would appear from the analyses that the
size (i.e., spacing of the joints) is of more importance than the dip of the joints.

Parameters required for lining design can be obtained using readily available site
exploration and laboratory testing techniques. However, the values used must be
tempered with an understanding of local geological conditions and their impact on
tunneling.

139
5.0 REVIEW OF CURRENT PRACTICES FOR TUNNEL LINER DESIGN

5.1 INTRODUCTION
Tunnel design and construction have been proceeding at a relatively rapid rate in
the United States since the beginning of the Bay Area Rapid Transit System (BART). This
has resulted in a substantial amount of experience being generated in tunnel design for a
wide variety of soil and rock conditions. This experience will be used herein to assess
methods currently in use for tunnel design and construction, and to identify the
geotechnical parameters required as input to them.

To obtain a better understanding of the state-of-practice of the use of geotechnical

parameters in tunnel design and construction, tunnel design criteria for four (4) transit
systems—the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART), Chicago Urban Transportation District
(CUTD), Maryland Mass Transit Administration (MTA), and the Washington Metropolitan
Area Transit Authority (WMATA) systems— were reviewed.

Because of the limitations in accurately determining the geotechnical parameters

and the variation of geotechnical conditions along the tunnel route, the design criteria for
each system are usually simplifications based on local tunneling experience. As the
tunneling experience accumulates with time, the design criteria are modified. A direct
comparison between the design criteria for various cities is not possible since they are
prepared to fit local geotechnical conditions. Furthermore, in order to have economical
and safe tunneling, design guidelines usually are given only for complicated ground
conditions. For example, design criteria for tunneling in rock or transition materials
usually are not given; rather, the section designer is required to consult with the General
Soils Consultant for a detailed design.

Due to the wide range in geological conditions (soft ground, rock and mixed face)
present in the area served by the WMATA system, the amount of tunneling performed, and
the willingness of the WMATA Engineering Department to make its files available for
review, the criteria and procedures for tunnel design being used on the WMATA system
were studied in detail. The criteria for the other systems are briefly summarized.

5.2 WMATA TUNNEL SYSTEM

To date (June 1979), about 30 miles of single track tunnel have been built in the
WMATA system— approximately 50 percent in soft ground and 50 percent in rock. As
indicated in Table 16, the 14 earth tunnel sections were designed by 13 different
consultants. The seven rock tunnel sections were designed by six different consultants
(Table 17). These 21 tunnel sections represent a wide range in ground and groundwater
conditions.

For most tunnel sections, the liners were constructed with one type of lining
system in one shape. However, for soft ground tunnels, the designers were required to
design rigid (cast-in-place concrete) liners in two shapes (circular and horseshoe), and two
circular-shape flexible liners (fabricated steel and cast iron). In rock tunnels, two shapes
of rigid liners were required. The final choice of permanent liner was generally based on
economic considerations and WMATA's safety requirements.

Because of the uncertainty of underground geologic features, temporary liners for

the earth tunnels and an initial support system for the rock tunnels, during the
construction stage, were suggested by the designer. It was the contractor's responsibility

HO
 « 1

if! III 1
R
if in m III 51 hi
1

UJ 1*1
hi is i;
>-
I/)

<
<
III
W
llii III
It

hi

Z s 1
»/) 1 i
I
-J
UJ ]
% ' "A Ml <!
Z lit let ft 1 si
z u S*
\
I-
«?
5»
D Mi iii
t-
Q
if
Z !li

D It

o
H ill
o
CO
g Hi !
*

u-
PI
III
1
i? iS I
O 1
s i
fl
r* i i h £
„ i 8
z III
f
till
I

>*M* B 5*5I
o I- iJlfiJi

< id I

1 I!'
ll! *
i
nil
i I" < I li 1 *•

a: III 5 38
1, ! US ii

o
z
|«!8S
Is '1?
2 !aj
ifl- P
ifj Bi-
rnth MM iliiliW
*— 1
e

Q !
S i

UJ

<
UJ

<< j»j

uu
O
faii i
< 5i
5
I , s ii
£ I

t/->
a "a
fc
<
y u a
it
in
pi
ri ill if* K
egg *
*i,
see
f 5"
il 3* in n III |bJ* ill |!1 S I!

UJ
Sis
sue
CQ
<
Sfefi
8* £* !? *5 21 5*
S£ SC »g at a* 5. s-
Si si *3

sJE_
m _fi S.
I

141
 1 I]
1 it
il it J.Ml Il
§11 HI i? "«f 1*1
P III I ft
1 5s I
ti
«fi 1U lis

! • 3
UJ 1
H
>-
to fill I III lllil cSc filii
<
„«<
< Sl
Pi i

E*5 ill III ill

II i

CO .11
J if? f 51
tiii
II
UJ
Z Ik Ik life ! ff
Z fc" 2; ££"
D il 5 l
H Iff ,
£i ill
Q i 1

Z i e

D ?!
O
t& » 5

o * j

1 1

I
is 5f ?
U- a s
jf
O
to 1?
if; f I
t
•J * I <5
i
5
il!
i
HI
o I
f ji
iii 8 5 i

ill hi tth
of — T" ill

£1 o
§3 I 111 ^ M 'I
if
ill
£?*
°
s
5 1 JJ
81- ?
»"

p5 Ji 1 3»* 1,
*J til a* S
It; £ St)
s- I
ljiji ill a? iw 111 iii is :i 1

OU |l
P |11
2 III
o.
iljl
? :] Il
III 311J J3 si? si ;?
pi
I

tu
z
fill
Is
Q I3

UJ t;
pi
r<o ^Uil ;i

U ll %i lififit
< li it i i» ^3 |I
X - u.
II
a

UJ 8o>-
octo iS
< <H

o P
UJ o uj l! PI
>- 0<d£ I i

< f*
J b
i
-01
t|
'1*1^ If littl
ot <O
E | ti
Pi! sl| ifj In ih
D i] ji ill ill ill ip
to
•
Si!
see $1H«. m
VO

UJ
~J

<
ESI Hi !,
i>X S* S.s
iuO<
CU3 £ s3 5J *l 5{ S] 21 S| It ?

-5, hf
*P1 -1 8
1
:
i
o "J
uj
2=£

1*2
 i 1 ! 1

i si

i il !'
*
.t

r n { HI
\
- \i
?
I II
3
$8-
iti
3
5 5 if l|i
a ill
Si s

ill 111 5S - «i
» v »
i-
A
1
5
< .. t
< in In
If II
tffj II
51 fill
s SSI
1
liiii
.IS - fe
8 {! t fc tfc
6 1
Z stfJ
to
5 »!il
in jail
-J
UJ
il I
M
Z [ ! C
5 I 1
5 I i

Z II i

D
>1 f lif 1
ir in i

u i
!? !
ii
!H il »
o is lit
il
i«t \
fit!
3
i
0* •a ill e]« » 111 !
\l i
tL, lE{f iH 1
o !?• lis i illi kli [
iff i i

z 11
eg
j El | nil Illi!
o
p Mill lilii^l .
-s

< |s5
lliillil i!
oS iijtej itthl ii
o Sib 111
li**««*«i
z
a !!
tu HE
Bis 5
< Cau
» il
-J
UJ
OS =is ! g

5*S * Si i
O.
>
*

-is
o- r
Mil i n
it *« £ i* !
OS »
'
)
i I
u
<
111
I*
iy s
1
i
en iM. I
I
8
iti I !
1 * 5 e
111 I Ill il
IPs 1m I i
H
i

UJ '*

CO OUC
<
1

BS
HE
_j Z*

n i
-

1*3
to select the temporary support system, e.g., the size and spacing of the steel ribs in earth
tunnel, and the spacing and length of the rock bolts in rock tunnel. This selection should
be based on the contractor's construction method, equipment, experience, and
compatibility of the support system and ground conditions. Since the selection of the
temporary support system is based largely on experience, and there are no required design
criteria, it is not considered in this chapter.

5.2.1 Design Criteria of WMATA Tunnel System

The design criteria for the tunnel liner system were prepared by the General
Engineering Consultant (GEC) of WMATA (DeLeuw, et al., 1973). These criteria provided
basic guidance for designers. The important points related to tunnel liner design are as
follows:

(1) Design loading and loading conditions on tunnels (Figures 62 through 68).

(2) Type, grade, and strength of the building materials.

(3) Design methods and design codes.

5.2.2 Geotechnical Information of WMATA Tunnel System

The design of tunnel liners relies heavily on geotechnical information of the

surrounding soil-rock materials. This information was provided by the General Soils
Consultant (GSC) of WMATA in the form of subsurface investigation reports (Mueser, et
al., 1967, 1976, etc.), which basically include the following points:

(1) Soil properties for design (Table 18).

(2) Soil-rock descriptions along the tunnel route.

(3) Soil-rock profile along the tunnel route.

(4) Groundwater conditions along the tunnel route.

(5) Coefficient of subgrade reaction for related types of soil.

(6) Vertical rock load along the tunnel route (Table 19 ).

(7) Any foreseeable construction difficulties; for example, excess hydrostatic

pressure, inadequate soil cohesion, unstable utility lines, etc.

(8) The collection of local geotechnical experience.

(9) Additional geotechnical information specifically requested by the designer.

5.2.3 Tunnel Liner Design of WMATA Tunnel System

5.2.3.1 Design of a Cast-in-Place, Circular-Shaped Reinforced Concrete Rigid Liner

in Soft Ground

To date (1979), in the WMATA system, circular, cast-in-place reinforced concrete

liners have been designed for most of the soft ground tunnel sections (11 out of 12
 \

DESIGN SURCHARGE
fe^Wa&SgMK^^
~7,.

VERTICAL PRESSURE =
•
& Mf )jL " "Mi -
ORIGINAL
'
^•™ ^^ — GWL
OVERBURDEN +
EARTH PRESSURE = 0.875 x
SURCHARGE VERTICAL EFFECTIVE STRESS

(
TUNNEL W—
(LOAD SYMMETRICAL)

LONG-TERM LOADING

CONSTRUCTION
SURCHARGE
^^^m^^^^^m^^mm^m
VERTICAL PRESSURE =
LOWEST PROBABLE EARTH
OVERBURDEN +
PRESSURE, GENERALLY ^
SURCHARGE AT-REST VALUES
(DEPENDING ON FLEXI-
BILITY OF STRUCTURE,
VERTICAL SIDE SHEARS CONSTRUCTION WL
MAY BE INCLUDED, GEN-
ERALLY LESS THAN FOR
HORSESHOE TUNNEL)

(LOAD SYMMETRICAL)
1 WATER PRESSURE

CONSTRUCTION AND SHORT-TERM LOADING

FIGURE 62. DESIGN LOADING FOR CIRCULAR TUNNEL BEFORE 1970

(MUESER, ET AL., 1969)

U5
 DESIGN
SURCHARGE
^^^^^^S^m^mh^S^^
VERTICAL PRESSURE = _iZ__tf.JL._UL
ORIGINAL GWL
OVERBURDEN + SURCHARGE
IN COMPACT GRANULAR MA- HORIZONTAL TOTAL
TERIALS. IN FINE GRAINED PRESSURE = 0.875 x
SOILS APPLY VERTICAL APPLIED VERTICAL
PRESSURE AT LEVEL OF PRESSURE
SPRINGLINE.
OVERBURDEN UNIT WEIGHT
TAKEN AS 130 PCF IN-
CLUDING WEIGHT OF WATER.
(LOAD SYMMETRICAL)
LONG-TERM LOADING

CONSTRUCTION
SURCHARGE
^^m^m^^^^z^^^^^^^
~Wa

VERTICAL PRESSURE =

OVERBURDEN + SURCHARGE EARTH PRESSURE,

GENERALLY 2/3 TO 3A
(DEPENDING ON FLEXIBILITY
OF STRUCTURE, VERTICAL OF VERTICAL EFFEC-
SIDE SHEARS MAY BE IN- TIVE STRESS
CLUDED, GENERALLY LESS CONSTRUCTION WL
THAN FOR HORSESHOE TUNNEL)

(LOAD SYMMETRICAL) i WATER PRESSURE

CONSTRUCTION AND SHORT-TERM LOADING

REVISED 3-27-70 JPG.

FIGURE 63 DESIGN LOADING FOR CIRCULAR TUNNEL AFTER 1970

(MUESER, ET AL., 1976)

146
 DESIGN
SURCHARGE
^^fe?^S??5^?5^^^fe?5^fe2?5^'/WW//?
~w*
ORIGINAL GWL
VERTICAL PRESSURE =
OVERBURDEN + SURCHARGE
' "
i\
\
\ ^ AT- REST EARTH
» PRESSURE

WATER
PRESSURE

(LOAD SYMMETRICAL)

LONG-TERM LOADING

CONSTRUCTION
SURCHARGE
^w^^m^h^^z^^mm^^^^>
AT-REST EARTH
SIDE SHEAR PRESSURE ABOVE
TUNNEL TOP
VERTICAL PRESSURE ON
TUNNEL TOP = OVERBUR-
DEN + SURCHARGE - SIDE ACTIVE EARTH PRES-
SHEAR SURES ON TUNNEL SIDE
SIDE SHEAR TO BE COM-
PUTED USING FRICTION CONSTRUCTION WL
FACTOR 0.3 IN CLAYEY
=

SOILS TO 0.5 IN SANDY

I WATER
PRESSURE
SOILS
(LOAD SYMMETRICAL)
CONSTRUCTION AND SHORT-TERM LOADING

FIGURE 64. DESIGN LOADING FOR HORSESHOE TUNNEL

(MUESER, ET AL., 1969 AND 1976)
Mil
 TABULATED AVERAGE VERTICAL
ROCK PRESSURE'- P R

HORIZONTAL ROCK PRESSURES

BELOW SPRINGLINE, GENERALLY
4 = '/2 Pr

4
ASSUME APPROXIMATELY '/4 P R
FOR TWIN SINGLE TRACK TUNNEL
DURING CONSTRUCTION

NNED OR FIXED

CASE 1. ROCK PRESSURES ONLY, WORKING STRESSES

BUOYANT ROCK PRESSURES,

TAKE 0.6 TIMES CASE 1.

GROUNDWATER PRESSURES
62.5 PCF x DEPTH OF TUNNEL
CROWN BELOW GROUNDWATER
LEVEL

SPRINGLINE,- '/
2 PW
w
:
ACTING HORIZONTALLY
PINNED AT SPRINGLINE

CASE 2. HYDROSTATIC PRESSURES, ULTIMATE STRESSES

FIGURE 65. DESIGN PRESSURE FOR ROCK TUNNEL (MUESER, ETAL.,

1967)
 HORSESHOE CIRCULAR

CASE I

(a) X = B/3
Y = B/4
(b) X = B/2
Y = B/3

CASE II

(a) X=B/3
Y =B/4
(b) X = B/2
Y =B/3

FOR CASES I AND II, ANGLE 8 TO BE DETERMINED FROM SUBSURFACE

DATA.

NOTE' FRICTION ANGLE OF 15° AT SLIDING JOINTS CASE I THRU ffl.

FIGURE 66. LOADING CONDITIONS FOR ROCK TUNNEL

(DeLEUW, ET AL„ 1973)

1*9
 HORSESHOE CIRCULAR

CASE IH
(a) X = B/3
Y = B/4
(b) X = B/2
Y=B/3

CASE IV
(a) a =30°
s (b) a = 45°

\ (c) a = 60°

FOR CASE III, ANGLE S TO BE DETERMINED FROM SUBSURFACE DATA

FIGURE 67 LOADING CONDITIONS FOR ROCK TUNNEL

(DeLEUW, ET AL., 1973)

150
 HORSESHOE CIRCULAR

CASEV

PR = TABULATED AVERAGE VERTICAL ROCK PRESSURE.

FIGURE 68. LOADING CONDITIONS FOR ROCK TUNNEL

(DeLEUW, ET AL., 1973)

151
 i H •4 < H

IX

JO *- 1-

c
•A <d
C
1)
c O (N
10
<D
CO
SSuT _^
o x>
o
,
CM
(
o
z
^«
O
J uj to
CD oo c
o
c
+»

-J "J o o
< Dei Z Z
a,

fcu
ZCL

ON
o
CM
O O
(N
O
CO
o
CN
O
CO
O O
CO

uj

"'00
3 CM
PguT co O O
CO r«N o o
"N.
oIT\
z UJ Ua CO (N
o
(N (N (N
o
1—4 z
to

fd

X) O
Qi OJ +*
O Z 7
°
<v
)-> MH MH
o 0)
(TJ
X> O •

t->
(i)
.c
GO
(A
M
to 60
LO
UJ a ^O 1- +-
^ CM
•
—
J^
m
H zS< ^3
O
£ £ DO ">
o
* +J
o o
M 4H
_ o
+> HH
.

< r- •'-,

2^
V4H
m
OS
UJ
< in 00
C C 8§
•^^
IT\

— o
(A
^^
a, H H O <D
a> to MH ON CM ^
O oZ " 1
to o .
"O fSJ o to
TJ o "S^
z o £> a;
> M O +J CN. +j o •M O
CL,
o •
to
(Q 4-» nj aJ M td -m
UJ
Otf
££ «d <N ^^— <u
o
X) o X) r>v ^^
O H 4-1 <<^ *d o m O CSI O o O <M
tO
tO
9x r "> .
to
c -c L-
V)
c JT
so
r £ •
(A
c -c
oi -JO
< ou (0 O ">
»->

a;
(d u_.
ks
8^c
i:
o 60
u
u, c
o
u
L-
•M
00
1_
u
<n
8^c
i:
OC UJ 0)
c CN 1^ c (0
ID a;

X gtt, <u
oo
V
much
0.3 Ove Stre
(U
> i_
+-» > 1-1
+-» Ove Stre

UJ tO
o° CD CO c o to O to <n
-J
CD u
<

D
i—
>
SI
(A
1_
D UJ
^
(0
>,
en
u X) 10
(0 Z
01
c UJ •»
C X> u
E 'G o c U O LU u
.—4

D +->
Z y rd O •— c ^H •M

> <d
u UJ
'c
(d
(O
>>
H
to
<d
60 1 2r
to
fd

< o * o U +> ^M
UJ ^ U o « U a.
UJ to -J
8S ^^ QU -— ^
< CD u>r
-—v
Q
<d * jC CM
v
—H .—
,2!h
^H H [ ^
-H ^-^

S E < h- H w H H «" H

152
 < •

o
SO

O
CO U-\
o SO rv eo
O O
^ £ 2 2 »A O
aO aO ir> IA
• (^ c*\ * lA CO
(N «*> — CM co

o
CO
o
co
o
CO
O
ro
o o
en
o
CO
o
co
ia
co

O o
00 st- 00 00
O.3-
co co co
O * O co
o O
CO
A m
(SI
O
M -3-
CO fO
O
sf
CO
O
CO
CM
co
CO
CO
a-
co

*- TJ
lO 0> Z ^ 4>
>
'to
UJ = 1
+-> > to
to
H 1 '5 -
°* s 5 < • o
•M
to

uj
U
o
z f-
<
lO CO o <j- o
Sw o !
+->
«
(N! "; § .

O u oi co
£ J*to MH tTO-55
H |

TJ tj +2 to
_y
+> to
y
z lO 1
<U
o
lA
— *a 2«a u-\
•sD
c -o (A ]

o OJ
>
!

TJ
(TJ
TJ co
M
tj
.

o tj o TJ O :
^§ o
H 1—
(V
•«-•
OJ •M
>% (O ^
!

< LU
"o «j fNJ <t "5 X5 ^
,

Q X
!

:
to
C
10
c
o
TJ JZ
rd
-o x;
+-•
TC' j:
+->
f- C£ ;

o CO
(TJ (TJ +->

u BO O M> &o
O Q u o c o c *- _- 60
<
LU CO
I

O; co
c "> ?>
c «
1/1

r n
C/l

c <u
a*
^ c i

X Z£ > -> o is o t-> o u ^o 2

o
»- !

to o OS o LO U lO U IT) •£. lO
•*->

tO
:

y u
10
TJ TJ TJ o
C c C
"3u >N
u CO
<TJ
CO 1/1 (TJ
C >> (TJ
(O 6
TJ
s £ u c C D u
(TJ
to
(TJ
>,
U ^^
D «-> (Ti
10
(TJ
tO O u >* CO
OQ
<
tj CO
(TJ
0>
>
1)
>
U to
>,
0)
oc>> <U
> a,
w u
£ (Tj (TJ m U
(TJ
S £
0& < (TJ ™^
u
(TJ o
00
H (O ac
o
u 2«u
eu
LO
T1)E,
clay
CM co •a- A yj
fV
,-v
H ^^
<N
^_£
ro
^
<j-
UJ
OS
a
UJ
M _J!rl
H U CL CL 0-
Q to
153
 V

TABLE 19. AVERAGE VERTICAL LOAD ON ROCK TUNNEL (Mueser, et al., 1967)

SINGLE. DOUBLE
TUNNEL TYPE TRACK TRACK STATION

EXCAVATED DIMENSIONS 20' WIDE 35' WIDE 70' WIDE

18' HIGH 24' HIGH 40' HIGH
MINIMUM COVER OF "RELATIVELY
SOUND OR SOUND ROCK" 10' 15' 30'
REQUIRED FOR TYPE LINING I

TYPE II LINING FOR THE FOLLOWING

CONDITIONS AVERAGE VERTICAL LOAD

PORTAL SECTIONS OR WHERE ROCK

COVER OF ANY QUALITY IS < 0.4 OF
/.x MINIMUM ROCK COVER FOR TYPE I FULL OVERBURDEN - E
VA;
LINING, OR WHERE THICKER ROCK
COVER IS HIGHLY JOINTED AND
WEATHERED
ROCK COVER RELATIVELY SOUND OR
(B) SOUND, BUT IS > 0.4 AND < 0.6 0.15 S V 0.30 1 V 0.60 Z V
OF MIN. ROCK COVER ABOVE
ROCK COVER RELATIVELY SOUND
(C) OR SOUND, BUT IS > 0.6 AND < 0.8 0.10 IV 0.20 Z V 0.40 z V
OF MIN. ROCK COVER ABOVE
ROCK COVER RELATIVELY SOUND
(D) OR SOUND, BUT IS > 0.8 AND < 1.0 0.05 E V 0.10Z V 0.20 Z V
OF MIN. ROCK COVER ABOVE
ROCK COVER > 1.0 OF MIN. VALUE,
(E) BUT IS NOT RELATIVELY SOUND 0.5KSF 1.0KSF 2.0KSF
OR SOUND AT TUNNEL TOP
NOTE: 1. Z V = TOTAL PRESSURE OF OVERBURDEN, SOIL + ROCK ABOVE TUNNEL
TOP.
2. RQD VALUES GREATER THAN 60 TO 70% GENERALLY QUALIFIES AS
RELATIVELY SOUND OR SOUND ROCK COVER.
3. TYPE LINING, ROCKBOLTS. STEEL SETS, SHOTCRETE, AND
I

COMBINATIONS THEREOF (WRITER'S NOTE).

4. TYPE II LINING, REINFORCED CONCRETE LINING (WRITER'S NOTE).

154
sections, except F-2a), and more than two-thirds of the sections have been constructed
with this type of liner system (9 out of 11 sections, except D-l and D-4a). The
requirement of shield driven tunnels, and the contractor's familiarity with this
construction methodology, may be the main reasons for using this type of permanent liner.

In the design analysis of circular, cast-in-place concrete liners, an elastic ring

under constant loadings with infinitesimal deformations has been assumed for most of the
sections. This assumption is valid, since the 15-inch-thick reinforced concrete ring
normally designed is much stiff er than the surrounding soils. Because of the relatively
small deformation of the ring, a linear elastic stress-strain relationship is assumed and the
principle of superposition applied in the loading-stress analysis of the concrete liner. The
long-term loading, as shown in Figure 62 or 63 » is the basis for the ring stress analysis.
Surcharge (300 psf), overburden depth, unit weight ( 3=130 pcf), original groundwater
level, and the modified coefficient of lateral earth pressure (K=0.875) are the primary
geotechnical parameters used in this analysis. From the obtained maximum moment,
thrust, and shear, the reinforcing steel for a cross section of the ring can be designed
through working stress analysis. Since the circular cast-in-place concrete liner is the
permanent structure, the designed liner must be able to sustain any realistic combination
of loadings which may occur during the life of the tunnel. Therefore, the liner must be
checked for construction and short-term loading conditions. As recommended by
WMATA's GEC, the ultimate stress analysis for reinforced concrete must be utilized in
the checking process. The additional geotechnical parameters needed in this process are:
side shear (cohesion, c, and angle of internal friction, ), and the coefficient of active
<J>

n s
earth pressure (K = ,~ i ). For simplicity, the GEC suggested K=0.65-1.00 (modified
,

a i+sin r
from K =0.45- 1.00) for ultimate strength checking. The groundwater table in this loading
condition can reasonably be assumed at the future tunnel springline level. It should be
noted that the coefficient of lateral subgrade reaction is not directly considered in the
design of this type liner because infinitesimal deformations of the liner are assumed.

The previously described design method is recommended by WMATA, and was

generally used by most of the section designers. However, some section designers, based
on their experience, made different assumptions to reach an effective design; and others
made thorough computer analyses for each influence factor. Some typical design methods
are discussed in the following paragraphs.

Tunnel Section C-k passes beneath the Potomac River north of Roosevelt Island.
Two typical cross sections were considered in the liner design, one soil and one rock. The
design of the tunnel liner in soil is discussed as follows. A 500 psf surcharge was assumed.
For formulation of the reinforced concrete design of the tunnel liner, the moments (M)
and thrusts (T) at the crown and the springline were calculated by Roark's formula (Roark
and Young, 1975) for an elastic ring:

M = 0.25 WR 2 ----- -————- —~ — -- (5-1)

where W the difference between average vertical pressure (p ) and average horizontal
is
pressure and R is the radius of excavation. Based on a selection of the reinforcing
(p. ),
steel design, the minimum allowable coefficient of lateral pressure (K) for the designed
liner was back calculated through the ultimate stress method. For this section, minimum
allowable K was 0.63, which was less than the lower limit (K=0.65) required. Thus, the
designed section was assumed satisfactory.

155
 Tunnel Section D-l is divided into two parts (north and south) by the Metro Center

station (A-l). The computer (Arch program) was utilized, and a total of eight loading
combinations were studied. They were long-term conditions (K =0.875, original ground-
water level), short-term conditions (K s(l-sin 4> )/(l+sin
), groundwater level below

invert), ultimate conditions (Ks0.45 ana Knl.00, with original groundwater level). Each of
these four loading conditions wis investigated for both the thermal expansion and thermal
shrinkage states by assuming a temperature rise of 30 P and temperature fail ©f 40 F,
respectively, ioth teorth and south) sections were also computer analyzed with the
configuration of a 90 cut=©ut around the bottom of the ring. In this cue, the built-in
condition (no translation and n§ rotation) was assumed for the two end support points
because (1) the total weight of the concrete liner with the applied live load and the total
weight of the soli excavated are about balanced (no significant settlement anticipated), (2)
the average thickness of the actual Invert floor Is about 2.5 ft of reinforced concrete (no
rotation). The final reinforced concrete liner design was based on the long-term loading
condition for the full ring configuration.

Tunnel Section D-4a is separated into three parts (west, center, and east) by the
L'Enfant Plaza station (D-3) and the Federal Center station (D-4b). Seven subsections,
including fourteen individual cases, were studied because of (1) differences in soil profile,
(2) different coefficients of lateral earth pressure (K=0.38 to 0.57), different side shear
(f =0.15 to 0.50) from different types of soil (fill, Tl, T2, T3, T5, and Pi), (3) different

surcharge (300 psf for construction load and 700 psf for railroad load), and (4) long-term
conditions, K=0.80, used where the spacing between two tunnels is less than one tunnel
diameter. After the analysis of all fourteen cases, the most critical construction
conditions for each subsection were selected, together with the long-term conditions
(K=0.875, K=0.65, and K = 1.00). The moment, thrust, and shear for every selected
combination were calculated by computer. In the final reinforced concrete design of the
tunnel liners, five of the seven subsections were governed by the long-term condition
where K=0. 875; while the other two subsections were governed by the long-term condition
where K=0.65.

Tunnel Section D-6 is divided into two parts (east and west) by the Eastern Market
station. Two subsections were considered because of different depths of overburden. For
construction and short-term loading, the following additional factors were taken into
account: (1) an ail around pressure (0.55 ksf) due to adjacent tunnels (as per BART
criteria), (2) an overload factor associated with ground loss, and (3) an elliptically shaped
alternative load diagram was assumed. Also, because the tunnel is in overconsolidated
clay, the average radial pressures were increased by 1.3 (overconsolidation ratio) times
the original radial pressure. Although the ring analysis, based on the assumed radial
pressures, may have given a more economical design, the final design of this section was
based on the usual long-term (K=0.875) analysis.

Tunnel Section F-lb is separated into two parts (north and south) by the Archives
station. Three subsections (1,2, and 3) were considered because of soil type, subgrade
reactions (k=120, 80 and 120 kef), and depths of overburden (5k ft, U2 ft, and 37 ft). Only
the long-term loading condition (K=0.875) was considered in the loading analysis. Using
the "STRESS" program, the moment, thrust, and shear for each joint were calculated. The
reinforced concrete design (working stress) was based on the worst combination of
moment and axial loads. The designed concrete cross section was back-checked by
ultimate strength method, using K=0.65 for subsections 1 and 3, and K=0A5 for subsection
2. According to the calculations, subsections 1 and 3 were satisfactory, but the K for
subsection 2 needed to be increased to 0.55. The deflection of the reinforced concrete

156
ring was also calculated by computer using the "'STRESS" program. The maximum
computed deformation at the crown was about 0.25 in.; the total vertical movement of the
soil and liner was about 1.0 in. However, because of the small magnitude of liner
deformation, the subgrade reaction force, due to 1/8 in. horizontal ring deformation, was
ignored.

Tunnel Section G-2 was designed by the same section designer as section F-lb, but
with different assumptions and design methods. Tunnel liners were designed with constant
thickness (15 in.), but varying reinforcement according to the depth of overburden (45 ft
to 95 ft). The groundwater effect and weight of the liner were ignored. The "STRESS"
computer program input included the following; (1) Vertical load due to 120 ft, 100 ft, 80
ft, 60 ft, and 40 ft of overburden soil, (2) Surcharge (300 psf), (3) Working stress load
(K =0.875) and ultimate stress load (K=0.65), and (4) Foundation supported by a spring
(k=200 kef) and without a spring. After the worst combination of moment and axial load,
in each case, was identified through the "Ultimate Column Load" program, the required
steel was calculated and a diagram of required steel vs. depth of overburden was plotted.
From this diagram, the foundation condition without a spring was shown to govern the
design. The required steel reinforcement, for a particular depth of overburden, can then
be selected from this diagram.

5.2.3.2 Design of a Cast-in-Place, Horseshoe Shaped Reinforced Concrete Rigid Liner in

Soft Ground

Horseshoe shaped tunnel liners are not commonly used in soft ground. The require-
ment of shield driven soft ground tunnels in the WMATA system and their high cost may
be the main reason for ruling out this alternative. However, for hand mining in mixed
face tunnels, this shape of tunnel is still the popular choice (e.g., north end of Section A-
2). Since only two of the twelve soft ground tunnel sections were designed for the
horseshoe shape, the loading conditions basically followed the WMATA standard form
(Figure 64, recommended by General Soils Consultant), and the analysis and design of the
liners are similar to that for a circular shaped tunnel section. No further discussion of
horseshoe shaped tunnels will be included here. The horseshoe shaped tunnel in
decomposed rock, jointed rock, and sound rock will be discussed in Section 5.2.3.4.

5.2.3.3 Design of a Fabricated Steel and Cast Iron Flexible Tunnel Liner in Soft Ground

The basic principle behind the utilization of the flexible circular tunnel liner is

that, with some limited deformations of the liner, the unevenly distributed earth pressure
on the liner will become approximately a uniformly distributed radial pressure (similar to
a hydrostatic pressure). Hence, the maximum moment in the liner will be reduced and less
material will be needed for the tunnel liner. The General Soils Consultant recommended
the range of coefficient of lateral earth pressure (K=0.90 to 0.97) for the design of a
flexible liner. The maximum allowable deformation of a flexible liner was about one inch.
In addition to the ground loading conditions, the stability (buckling) of the liner must also
be checked against jacking forces.

The flexible tunnel liners were designed for nine of twelve soft ground tunnel
sections. Following are discussions of some representative sections.

Tunnel Section D-l was designed according to the following assumptions: (1) The
downward at the crown and outward at the springline (K < 1.0), (2)
flexible liners deflect
The effect of side shear is neglected, (3) The intensity of passive lateral pressures are

157
proportional to the lateral deflections of the tunnel subjected to distributive loading. The
controlling values for geotechnical parameters arel<=l^ kef and = 34° for the north <j>

segment, and T< = 72 kef and $ =25 for the south segment. Seven loading cases in two
combinations (long-term and short-term) were considered in the analysis. The actual
coefficient of horizontal earth pressure (based on friction angle, $ ) and the groundwater
level (from soil profile) were used. A reasonable thickness of the fabricated steel liner
plates (7/16 In. skin and 7/8 in. flange) wis assumed and its moment of inertia was
calculated, iastd on the load combination, section properties, and material properties
(Young's modulus of elasticity), the moment, thrust, and deformation can be computed
with the assumption that the flexible liner is under constant loads. With the computed
deformation, & R^, through the approximation formula:

EI ARj

R*

where

pn maximum passive soil pressure (psf)

Es Young's modulus of elasticity (29 x 10 psi)

I = moment of inertia per foot (in. /ft)

R= radius of the tunnel liner (ft)

AR - maximum horizontal ring deformation without lateral reaction (in.)

the maximum passive soil pressure is calculated. Through the second approximation
formula;
AR lP
K
2 " AR k + p
U *'

where

A R_ is the maximum final deformation (in.), and

k is the coefficient of lateral subgrade reaction (ksf /in.),

the maximum final deformation is obtained. The actual passive soil pressure (p ) is
2
determined by the p ? = k «AR relationship. Thus, the moment and thrust induces by
the passive soil pressure can be determined accordingly. The final moment and thrust are
determined by summing the moments and thrusts, respectively, obtained from the free
force field and the induced passive soil pressure. In the north section, for example, the
moment at the crown is reduced to about 20% of the original moment in the free force
field. The thrust at the crown is increased to about 130% of the original thrust in the free
force field. The deformation at the springline is reduced to about 10% of the original
deformation, and the final deflection at the crown is about 0.4 inch. The same size liner
plate is used for the south segment, because the depth of overburden is shallower (35 ft

158
related to 50 ft in the north segment). The maximum deflection will be increased because
of the coefficient of lateral subgrade reaction (k = 72 kef compared to 1H kef at the
north segment), but the deflection is still less than one inch.

Tunnel Section D-^a was designed with assumptions and methods different from
D-l. InD-4a, four loadings were superimposed. They were: (1) Weight of the liner; (2)
Partial uniform live load at invert; (3) Radial earth pressure (K=1.0) (the intensity of the
radial pressure is from the vertical earth pressure plus surcharge), ignoring the
groundwater effect; and (4) Corrective pressure to develop the allowable deflection, 5
(distortion of diameter = 0.67 inch). Soil response (passive earth pressure) was overlooked
in deriving the p-<$ relationship. The assumptions behind the design method were totally
independent of the lateral resistance concept. The two main assumptions are: (1) The
major part of the load on the ring is uniformly hydrostatic, thus zero moment is induced
(underestimation), and (2) There is no laterally induced soil resistance against the
corrective pressure, thus the moment is increased greatly (overestimation). Since these
two factors tend to compensate each other, in the final design of the liner there is no
significant difference between the D-4a and D-l sections. In total, seven subsections
along the D-4a route, with both fabricated steel liner and cast iron liner, three different
fabricated steel liner thicknesses (9/16 in., 1/2 in., and 7/16 in.), as well as three
different allowable deflections (3/4 in., 2/3 in., and 1/2 in.) were analyzed in the design
process. The computer output of some specific points on the ring (crown and springline)
are checked and were consistent with hand calculations (based on elastic theory). The
final design of the liner system was also checked for jacking force.

Tunnel Section D-6 was analyzed by three different methods: (1) Elastic ring
analysis with the assumed coefficient of lateral earth pressure (K=0.9); (2) Drucker's
method, based on elastic ring analysis and the induced soil reaction (the overconsolidation
ratio is also considered in the radial pressure computation); and (3) Method based on
observed diameter distortion (Deere, et al., 1969). Based on the elastic analysis of the
liner, the maximum moment in the liner under the assumed loads is

M . -JH_ x
-AR (5-5)

where

R is the radius of the tunnel,

A R is the change in the radius of the tunnel,

E is the modulus of elasticity of the liner,

I is the moment of inertia of the liner, and

A —AnR— ratio (representing the distortion of the tunnel radius) equal to 0.5 percent is
assumed. This method takes advantage of utilizing the strength of the surrounding soils.
Three kinds of flexible liner segments were designed— fabricated steel liner plates, cast
iron liner plates, and pre-cast concrete segments. Two cross sections, one shallow cover
and one deep cover, are considered in the design process,

5.2.3.4 Design of Permanent Tunnel Liners in Rock

Presently, there are seven tunnel sections of the WM.ATA system that have been
constructed in decomposed rock, jointed rock, or sound rock. Of these seven sections, the

159
design data were not available for two of the sections (A-6a and C-5). The design method
of one section (A- 10a) is a duplication of another section (A~9a), The remaining four
sections (C-4, K-l, A-9a, and A-lla) will be discussed in this section. Although the
General Engineering Consultant provided basic guidance for tunnel design (Figures 66, 67
and 68 ), soil/rock profile, and average rock loads, different section designers, based on
their own experience, used different design methods. Thus, in the following paragraphs,
each tunnel section will be discussed separately.

More than one-half of tunnel section C-4 is under the Potomac River in moderately
blocky and seamy rock. Although an average vertical rock load (1.2 ksf) was
recommended, a higher rock load (2.34 ksf), based on Proctor and White (1968), was
actually used In the design* Since the tunnel Is directly under the river bottom, a
maximum 120 ft water head is assumed for the permanent liner design* In the design of
the reinforced concrete permanent liner, it was assumed that the temporary rib support
system was prestressed to resist all the rock load and was considered a part of the
reinforcing steel in the permanent liner. The permanent liner was designed to resist the
portion of the load between 120 ft hydrostatic load and rock load (7.49-2.34 s 3.13 ksf).
The out-of-plane buckling of the rib was also checked in the design process.

Tunnel Section K-l passes through both sound rock and decomposed rock. Two
typical cross sections were analyzed and designed. Since both sound rock and decomposed
rock are relatively stiff materials, the lateral passive rock pressures are considered in the
design of cast-in-place reinforced concrete liners. As shown in Figure 69, the total rock
load used in design is 1.4 ksf for a sound rock section. Based on the rock load, weight of
the rock between crown and springline, weight of liner, and the assumed liner section
property (moment of inertia), the active moment, thrust, and deformation can be
calculated through elastic ring analysis. On the basis of calculated deformation and the
given spring constant of the rock (780 kef), the induced passive rock pressure can be
computed. Similarly, based on the computed rock pressure, the passive moment and thrust
can be determined. Summing up the active and passive moment and thrust, the
reinforcing steel can be designed. If the assumed section is not satisfactory, a different
section can be assumed and, through the same process, its adequacy can be evaluated. By
trial and error, the most economical section can then be obtained.

For tunneling in decomposed rock, the total depth of overburden and active lateral
pressure have been taken into account as shown in Figure 70. The design procedures are
the same as those for the sound rock section. The horseshoe shape reinforced concrete
liners, in both cases, were also designed using the same procedures.

Tunnel Section A-9a was designed with the aid of a computer. The Structural
Analysis Program (SAP) was utilized. Loading conditions consisted of both discrete rock
mass loads at various angles and vertical rock pressure (average vertical rock load = 1
ksf). In total, six loading conditions were considered. Five were based on the General
Engineering Consultant's recommendation (Figures 66 to 68), but the sixth had unequal
lateral pressure (lateral pressure on one side was twice that on the other). Both the
circular and horseshoe tunnel configurations were considered in design. It was assumed
that no friction force existed between joints or at the liner-rock interface. Two rock
stiffnesses (480 and 840 kef), and three liner thicknesses (6, 8, and 12 in.) were assumed in
the analysis. The stiffness matrix was obtained using the beam on an elastic foundation
theory, with the assumed liner section_property (moment of inertia) and material
properties (E for reinforced concrete and k for surrounding rock). Moments and stresses
were computed for the assumed section. It was found that for the given loading
conditions, Case IV (Figure 67) for the circular liner, and Case III (Figure 67) for the

160
 GROUND SURFACE

SPRING CONSTANT
Kr = 65KIPS/FT2/|NCH
FOR SOUND ROCK

WEIGHT OF ROCK
10 FT. ROCK "a" WEIGHT OF ROCK ABOVE
BETWEEN CROWN
AND SPRINGLINE-
<9> 140 PCF CROWN OF TUNNEL

REACTION a,b Se

W INDICATES PASSIVE PRESSURE AS A FUNCTION OF THE TUNNEL DEFLEC-

TION DUE TO ACTIVE LOADS AND STIFFNESS OF THE ROCK SURROUNDING
THE TUNNEL.

CIRCULAR TUNNEL- LONG TERM LOADING

FIGURE 69. DESIGN LOADING FOR SOUND ROCK SECTION

(SINGSTAD, ET AL., 1974)

161
 SURCHARGE = 300 PSF
GROUND SURFACE
WT = I30PCF
FILL a DRY SAND
0= 34° TO 38° ASSUMED GROUNDWATER
WT=I30PCF
CLAYEY SAND
0=33° TO 36°
y y x. )L y
w
^ GROUNDWATER SHOWN
WT.= !40PCF ON REPORT
DECOMPOSED ROCK
t =36°

FOR LATERAL PRESSURES

WATER = 62.5 PCF
SOIL= K( 130-62.5) OR
K040-62.5)
Sm
WHERE K= ,'T+ sm !
I

FOR 0=36°, K = 0.26

SPRING CONSTANT
SURCHARGE Kr=40KIPS/FT2/iNCH
300 PSF FOR DECOMPOSED ROCK.
DRY a SAT SOIL ft
"a" WEIGHT OF SOIL
WEIGHT OF SOIL 130 PCF 8
BETWEEN CROWN SURCHARGE LOAD ABOVE
8 SPRING LINE DECOMPOSED ROCK CROWN OF TUNNEL
©I 40 PCF

W, W,

W2 - W2

W3 W-

w4 W4
REACTION a b&e ACTIVE LATERAL PRES-
BUOYANCY SURE DUE TO SOIL 8
CORRECTION WATER

"W" INDICATES PASSIVE PRESSURE AS A FUNCTION OF THE TUNNEL DEFLECTION

DUE TO ACTIVE LOADS AND THE STIFFNESS OF THE SOIL SURROUNDING
THE TUNNEL.

CIRCULAR TUNNEL -LONG TERM LOADING

FIGURE 70. DESIGN LOADING FOR DECOMPOSED ROCK SECTION

(SINGSTAD, ET AL., 1974)

162
horseshoe liner, result in the maximum stress condition and govern the reinforced
concrete design of the liner section. For each tunnel configuration, the first two loading
cases, which induce maximum stresses, were selected for the section thickness study to
achieve the most economical design. In comparing all the available data for this tunnel
section, it was found that (1) the variation of rock stiffness has relatively little effect on
the induced loadings on the liner, (2) at a given rock stiffness and loading condition, the
thinner lining thickness develops lesser moment. However, the section modulus of the
thinner lining reduces more rapidly and the net effect is an increase of stress in the lining.

Tunnel Section A-lla was designed essentially on the same concept as A-9a, with
the addition of a tangential boundary element at each nodal point for modelling slip
resistance. The shear modulus of the element is taken as one-half of the corresponding
radial modulus. However, the unequal lateral pressure loading condition was not
considered in the computer analysis of this tunnel section.

5.3 DESIGN CRITERIA OF BART, CUTD, AND MTA SYSTEMS

5.3.1 Design Criteria of BART System

The San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) (Parsons, et al., 1968) tunnels
are predominantly in water-bearing granular materials, although soft clay and transition
materials are encountered along certain lengths of the tunnels. At that time (1968), in
preparing the design criteria, consultants for the BART system recommended the flexible
liner as the most desirable liner for the system. They assumed that the ground and liner
would distort together until largely uniform forces acted on the circumference of the
liner. They assumed a pre-determined diameter distortion as the basis for the calculation
of the maximum moment of the liner. This assumption is consistent with the theory of
liner design subsequently proposed by Deere, et al. (1969), based on observed diameter
distortion. Based on Terzaghi's arching theory (Terzaghi, 1946), they considered arch
action in granular soils at a depth of cover greater than 35 ft. Beyond 35 ft of cover, only
one-half of the overburden was considered to load the liner. Arching was considered not
to be present in soft clay. The recommended design loads for single tunnels are presented
in Figures 71 and 72 . The criteria to assess the influence of parallel tunnels were
recommended as indicated in Figures 73 and 74 •

The consultants for the BART system also presented guidelines related to the
effect of future construction over the tunnels. It required that future structures should
neither physically interfere with the tunnels nor increase the loading on the tunnels so as
to exceed the maximum design loads. Based on the proposed design criteria (Figures 71
to 74), the consultants developed three basic liner classes. The section designer only
needed to check the loading conditions of each individual subsection and to select the
appropriate liner class.

In the BART criteria, the design for bending resistance based on a pre-determined
distortion was a great improvement over the state of practice at that time.

5.3.2 Design Criteria of CUTD System

The design criteria of the Chicago Urban Transportation District (CUTD) (DeLeuw-
Novick, 1975) are mainly derived from two sources— the previous (1940's) tunneling
experience in Chicago soils and research at the University of Illinois. Ground behavior
during tunnel construction is emphasized in these criteria. As presented in Figures 75
through 78, the temporary tunnel support system, the earth pressures on permanent

163
 a. GROUND LEVEL
a. FOR DEPTH TO CROWN FROM 35 FT.
WATER LEVEL
VELj TO 75 FT (OVER 35 FT. ARCHING IS
JZ L. U- CONSIDERED) AND GROUNDWATER
z ABOVE CROWN

P = (35 + + (z + D)
z
r f) yt yw
o PLUS
a BENDING FORCES RESULTING FROM
b. GROUND LEVEL AXIAL DIAMETER CHANGES OF + 5/8"
Z b. FOR DEPTH TO CROWN FROM 12 FT.
WATER LEVEL -7 TO 35 FT. AND GROUNDWATER z
ABOVE CROWN
Pr = 35 y| +(z + D) rw
PLUS
BENDING FORCES RESULTING FROM
AXIAL DIAMETER CHANGES OF 1/2"
c. FOR MINIMUM DEPTH TO CROWN OF
12 FT.

P =(l2 + D/2)y t
r
+(z+D)y w
PLUS
BENDING FORCES AS IN b.

NOTES'

y t
= UNIT WEIGHT OF SOIL ADJUST-
ED FOR BUOYANCY

yw = UNIT WEIGHT OF WATER

Pr = RADIAL LOAD, PSF, APPLIED
UNIFORMLY AROUND CIRCUM-
FERENCE
ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN FEET

FIGURE 71. BART- GROUND PRESSURES FOR TUNNEL IN SAND OR

PREDOMINANTLY GRANULAR GROUND
(DEERE, ET AL, 1969)

[G'4
 GROUND LEVEL

Pr = zy RADIAL LOAD, APPLIED

=
UNIFORMLY AROUND CIRCUM-
FERENCE
VERTICAL AXIS LENGTHENS
= HORIZONTAL AXIS SHORTENS
= 7/8"

r = UNIT WEIGHT OF SOIL

FIGURE 72. BART-GROUND PRESSURES FOR TUNNEL IN SOFT

PLASTIC CLAY (DEERE, ET AL, 1969)

165
 GROUND LEVEL

TUNNEL 1.

THE PRESSURE ON THE LOWER

TUNNEL MAY BE APPROXIMATED
BY
Pe = l.5 yt D+y w x

WITH A PRACTICAL LIMIT OF'

3.0 yt D

THE LOADING OF THE SOIL OF THE

LEVEL OCCUPIED BY THE UPPER
TUNNEL MAY BE CONSIDERED OFF-
SET BY THE BUOYANCY OF THE
UPPER TUNNEL.

TUNNEL 2.

LOADING SAME AS CONDITION b.

OR c. OF FIGURE 5-10. USUALLY
NO ARCHING EFFECT AVAILABLE
BECAUSE SOIL HAS BEEN DIS-
TURBED BY LOWER LEVEL TUN-
NELING.

FIGURE 73. BART- EFFECTS OF VERTICALLY ADJACENT TUNNEL

(DEERE, ET AL., 1969)

166
 GROUND LEVEL

i
\
)
SECOND TUNNEL CON-
STRUCTED INSIDE PLANE
OF INFLUENCE OF FIRST
TUNNEL

SECOND TUNNEL
CONSTRUCTED OUT-
SIDE PLANE OF IN-
FLUENCE OF FIRST
TUNNEL

'/
2DMIN.WHEN TUNNEL INVERTS *©
SAME ELEVATION

CASE a. TUNNELS HORIZONTALLY ADJACENT

1. IF CLEARANCE BETWEEN TUNNELS "C" > D, ADDITIONAL Pr =0
2. IF C IS '/2D, ADDITIONAL PRESSURE SHOULD BE 0.5 y w D
3. TUNNELS SHOULD NOT BE DRIVEN CLOSER THAN C = '/2 D
CASE b. TUNNELS OFFSET BOTH HORIZONTALLY & VERTICALLY
1. WHEN HORIZONTAL CLEARANCE BETWEEN TUNNELS IS EQUAL
TO OR GREATER THAN ONE-HALF OF THE VERTICAL DIS-
TANCE BETWEEN THE INVERTS OF THE TUNNEL PLUS ONE
TUNNEL DIAMETER, THE ADDITIONAL PRESSURE ON THE
LOWER TUNNEL IS ZERO (Pr = 0)
(PLANE OF INFLUENCE ASSUMED AT 2v ON Ih)
2. WHEN THE HORIZONTAL CLEARANCE BETWEEN TUNNELS IS
LESS THAN IN b. ABOVE, THE ADDITIONAL PRESSURE P r
I.

SHOULD BE EVALUATED BETWEEN FIGURE 5-12. AND CASE

a. 2. ABOVE

FIGURE 74. BART-EFFECTS OF ADJACENT TUNNELS

(DEERE, ETAL., 1969)

167
 NORMAL BLOWOUT NORMAL BLOWOUT
OPERATING L CONDITION (p a =0) OPERATING I
CONDI TION (p a =Q)

STIFF
LAYER

^FOOTING

CONSTRUCTION CASE CONSTRUCTION CASE

"SOFT" CLAY "STIFF"CLAY
USE WHERE q r IN ZONE USE WHERE q r IN ZONE
H, IS < 0.5 tsf H,
H, IS > 0.5 tsf

W-S--f-p a = (2q r + p a )H +A(q d +p a 1

) W-S = pa f + A(q d +p a )

W = ONE HALF OF THE WEIGHT OF THE CLAY (SOLID AND WATER

COMBINED) LOCATED WITHIN THE SHADED AREA, PER FOOT
OF LENGTH OF THE TUNNEL;
A = ONE HALF OF THE AREA OF THE FOOTINGS, PER FOOT OF
LENGTH.;
B = WIDTH OF THE TUNNEL;
qd= BEARING CAPACITY OF THE FOOTINGS PER SQUARE FOOT;
S = THE EFFECTIVE SHEARING RESISTANCE OF THE CLAY ALONG
ONE OF POTENTIAL SURFACES OF SLIDING, PER FOOT OF
LENGTH OF TUNNEL;
pa = THE AIR PRESSURE IN POUNDS PER SQUARE FOOT, IN EXCESS
OF THE ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE;
q r
= AVERAGE UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH IN ZONE H,.
NOTE: STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF THE LINER ELEMENTS CONSIDERS
THE "BLOWOUT" CONDITION, WHILE DESIGN FOR LIMITING
LOSS OF GROUND CONSIDERS "NORMAL OPERATING" CON-
DITIONS.

FROM TERZAGHI, 1943

FIGURE 75. CUTD -ANALYSIS FOR STABILITY OF LINER PLATE

TUNNELS (DeLEUW-N0VICK,l975)
168
 GROUND SURFACE GROUND SURFACE

-iUUlL.
Ph

rmrn Pv
CIRCULAR SECTION
DESIGN FOR RING COMPRESSION HORSESHOE SECTION
P =yz DESIGN FOR Ph = P v AND
WHERE y = TOTAL UNIT WEIGHT Ph=< 2/3)P V WHERE Pv=rz
z = TUNNEL AXIS DEPTH
FROM PECK, 1969 FROM TERZAGHI, I960
EARTH PRESSURES ON PERMANENT LINERS
NOTE' DESIGN GIVEN ABOVE MUST BE CHECKED FOR EXCESSIVE BENDING
STRESSES UNDER CONDITIONS OF ESTIMATED DISTORTION EQUAL
TO A SMALL PERCENTAGE OF TUNNEL RADIUS, Ar/r%. FOR
Ar/r VALUES SEE DEERE, ET AL, 1969.

DESIGN DISTORTION
>4r
1st TUNNEL 2nd TUNNEL
Ar Ar

2Ar Ar
r r

NOTE= LINEAR INTERPOLATION

2.5r FOR INTERMEDIATE
CASES.
FROM DEERE, ET AL., 1969
DISTORTION OF PERMANENT LINERS

FIGURE 76. CUTD- DESIGN CONDITIONS FOR PERMANENT TUNNEL

LINERS (DeLEUW-NOVICK,l975)

169
 GROUND SURFACE GROUND SURFACE
//&/&/&//*%&//

FAILURE
SURFACE^ |

TUNNEL
B--

TUNNEL
B
FAILURE
SURFACE

FOR z > 2B FOR z < 2B

CRITICAL OFS
2 TT
CRITICAL OFS =
2
f +-
B
'* z
1 +6 z

yZ Pa
COMPUTED OFS = c

OFS = OVERLOAD FACTOR

y = UNIT WEIGHT OF SOIL
z = AXIS DEPTH OF TUNNEL
B = TUNNEL WIDTH OR DIAMETER
Pa = INTERNAL PRESSURE
c = UNDRAINED SHEAR STRENGTH

FROM DEERE, ET AL., 1969

FIGURE 77 CUTD- TUNNELS IN CLAY, STABILITY OF WORKING

FACE (DeLEUW-NOVICK.1975)

170
 r GROUND SURFACE PROCEDURE FOR ESTIMATING
2i
GROUND SETTLEMENT
1. ESTIMATE THE VOLUME LOST
GROUND OVER A SINGLE TUNNEL,
Vs, BASED ON SOIL TYPE, SOIL
CONDITIONS, AND CONSTRUCTION
METHODS. FOR THIS USE EXPE-
RIENCES TABULATED IN PECK
(1969)
2. USE FIGURE BELOW TO ESTI-
MATE TROUGH WIDTH.
3. CALCULATE 8MAX. = Vs/2.5 i

4. DISTRIBUTION OF SETTLEMENT
IS SHOWN AT LEFT
5. FOR TWIN TUBE TUNNELS, USE
R' = R+ d/2 WHERE d = CENTER-
TO -CENTER SPACING.
FOR HORSESHOE TUNNELS USE
R'= 1/2 TUNNEL WIDTH.

ce
o

SANDS BELOW
GROUNDWATER
LEVEL*-**
i=& oe
UJ VSOFT TO TOUGH
2 3 \ CLAYS *** ^
<
o
_i HARD CLAYS,
UJ
SANDS ABOVE
GROUNDWATER
-CHICAGO S-6* LEVEL***

X CHICAGO S-3**
CD

O
at
_L 1 J_ 1
I 2 3 4 5 6
DEPTH /DIAMETER RATIO, z/2R OR z/2R*

*TERZAGHI, 1943 *** LIMITS FROM PECK, 1969

* * TERZAGH 1
, 1942 ® SCHMI DT, 1969

FIGURE 78. CUTD- TROUGH WIDTHS, SUBSIDENCE OVER TUNNELS

IN CLAY (DeLEUW-NOVICK.1975)

171
liners, the distortion of permanent liners, the stability of the tunnel face, and the
settlement over tunnels are considered in the design. It should be noted that a coefficient
of lateral earth pressure of 0.67 is recommended for permanent rigid liner design. For
permanent flexible liner design, the combined forces due to the estimated diameter
distortion, the driving of the shield, and the effect of parallel tunnels are considered in
the maximum moment calculations. Furthermore, the soil types are also considered in
determining the influence zones for adequate protection of adjacent structures.

5.3.3 Design Criteria of MTA System

The design criteria of the Maryland Mass Transit Administration (MTA) (Daniel, et
al., 1974) are basically a continuation and modification of the criteria of the WMATA
system. These modifications are based on accumulated tunnel data from field
observations and investigations. The main improvements of the MTA criteria are
presented in this subsection.

For reinforced concrete rigid earth tunnel sections, the coefficient of earth
pressure is determined by the type of soil through which the tunnel is to be driven rather
than a constant value being assigned for all soil types, as in the WMATA system. For
flexible earth tunnel sections, the circular segmental tunnel liners are designed to resist
jack thrusts (125 tons spaced at about 2.5 ft on centers), for a maximum diameter
distortion, and the possibility of corrosion.

The design criteria of the MTA system also provide guidelines for the design of
rock tunnel linings. Two types of tunnel linings are proposed—Type I for good quality
rock, and Type II for poor quality rock. In tunnel sections where the subsurface
exploration indicates that rock conditions are favorable (RQD ^ 75%), and loosened rock
load may be small, Type I lining shall be considered. Type I lining comprises grouted rock
bolts and shotcrete to provide both temporary and permanent supports. Two or three
layers of shotcrete (reinforced if necessary by welded steel-wire fabric) may be needed to
resist possible localized loosened rock loads at positions between rock bolts. Recent
investigations of shotcrete behavior at the University of Illinois (Mahar, et ah, 1975)
suggest that the maximum useful thickness of shotcrete for this type of loading is four
inches. The basic layout, lengths, and orientation of rock bolts and tension loads to be
applied are largely dependent on rock conditions disclosed by tunnel excavations.

Where substantial rock and overburden loads must be supported, or Type I lining is
not applicable (RQD £ 50%), a permanent lining, consisting of either structural steel ribs
encased in concrete or reinforced concrete, are provided. The concrete can be placed
either by the cast-in-place or shotcrete method. The loading schemes are similar to
Figure 70, based on the rock conditions predicted. However, in cases where exploratory
information indicates that complete drainage may be impracticable, the design loading is
increased to include an allowance for exterior hydrostatic pressures or, alternatively,
grouting of the rock is specified so as to reduce the permeability and expected inflow and
provide adequate drainage.

A geotechnical report is required by the authority (MTA) from the Final Designer
(section designer), which is supplied to the contractor prior to bidding. Based on the
information provided by the General Soils Consultant, the following points are included in
this report: (a) The predicted soil/rock behavior during construction, (b) Groundwater
conditions, (c) Extent of each soil/rock stratum, (d) Man-made obstructions, (e) Value of

172
each geotechnical parameter used in design. From this report, the contractor should have
a better understanding of underground conditions, prepare a more realistic cost estimate,
and establish better construction controls.

5.4 DISCUSSIONS

Based on review of design criteria, design computations, and related

the
publications (Bawaand Bumanis, 1972; Alldredge, 1974; Bock, 1974; Bock, 1976;
Daugherty, et al., 1976; and Kuesel, 1976) on the WMATA system and study of the design
criteria of three other metro systems (BART, CUTD, and MTA), the following points are
found to be important and need further discussion.

5.4.1 Structural Analysis of Tunnel Liners in Soft Ground

Although the temporary steel ribs and wood lagging liner is stiffer than a
permanent flexible (fabricated steel or cast iron) liner, this temporary liner will also
experience certain amounts of deformation before the cast-in-place concrete rigid liner is
installed. This implies that the pressure distribution around the permanent liner is more
evenly distributed than if a rigid liner were installed immediately at the face. The non-
rigid behavior of the foundation soil will also help to reduce the maximum moment in the
liner (as discussed in Section 5.2.3.1 for G-2 section). Thus, the validity of the lower limit
of the modified coefficient of lateral earth pressure (K=0.65) in the WMATA criteria
needs further investigation. The basic concepts of the flexible liner design also support
this point; that is, the strength of the soil around the liner will contribute to the stability
of the circular tunnel liner.

In general, the most adequate flexible liner design method to date (1979) is based
on the assumed diameter distortion (0.5 to 1.0%) for the maximum moment calculation;
the full overburden pressure for the maximum thrust calculation; and checking the
expected jacking forces and the estimated maximum hydrostatic pressure on the designed
liner.

5.4.2 Structural Analysis of Tunnel Liners in Rock

In the design criteria of theWMATA system, the strength contribution of rock bolts
is usually ignored in the design of the permanent liner in rock. This condition is improved
in the MTA criteria, i.e., Type I lining is sufficient for permanent support. However, in
some situations, the large oblique rock block load may still govern the final design. Thus,
in order to reach a safer and more economic liner design, further investigation on the
influence of the rock bolt pattern, rock block-bolt interaction, and the long-term
effectiveness of the grouted rock bolts is needed.

5.4.3 Drainage Effect on Design of Tunnel Liners

In the WMATA system, the Tunnel Section C-4 underlies the Potomac River, and a
120 ft hydrostatic head is assumed in the design. This is reasonable, since the limited
drainage will not lower the river water level and the aging effect of the rock grout is an
uncertain factor. For the tunnel line away from the river water source, some guidelines
for evaluating the medium permeability, grouting effect, exterior hydrostatic pressure,
and expected inflow rates are recommended in the MTA criteria.

173
5.4.4 Development of Design Criteria

Time and local soil/rock types comprise two main restrictions for the development
of each design criteria. The BART criteria were issued in 1968. Their main contribution
is the introduction of flexible liners and the simplified design concepts of this liner. That

is, the design for maximum moment based on estimated diameter distortion. The concept
of the arching effect in sandy soil is also emphasized in this criterion. The design criteria
for the effect of parallel tunnels are also given. Since there was no rock tunneling
expected in the area, the BART system only has design criteria for soft ground.

The WMATA criteria were issued originally in 1967. Later, there were several
revisions. The design criteria discussed herein are based on the 1973 issue (12th revision).
Fundamentally speaking, these criteria are more structurally oriented than geotechnically
oriented. This may partially be due to the available tunnel construction technology at
that time. That is, nine of the twelve soft ground tunnels were constructed with steel rib
and lagging temporary liner systems, and with cast-in-place reinforced concrete
permanent liners, although both rigid and flexible liners were designed. In this criterion,
the structural design of permanent liners is the main emphasis. For the permanent liner in
rock, the minimum thickness of sound rock cover is specified. For example, for a
maximum excavated width of 20 ft, 35 ft and 70 ft, the minimum sound rock cover should
be 10 ft, 15 ft, and 30 ft, respectively. With rock cover of these amounts, the rock was
believed to be capable of supporting itself and the overburden with no more than rock bolt
reinforcement. For any condition in either soil or rock not covered by the above
mentioned situation, the design manual instructs the designer to follow the
recommendation of the General Soils Consultant. The soil/rock tunnel behavior, the
ground surface settlement, drainage conditions, etc., are not specified in this criterion.

The design criteria of the MTA system were issued in 1974. These criteria are
basically a continuation and expansion of the WMATA
criteria. Permanent flexible liner
design in soft ground, the Type I and Type II lining design in rock, and the drainage
conditions are specified in these criteria. Furthermore, the requirement of a geotechnical
report is another step toward better construction practice.

The design criteria of the CUTD system were issued in 1975. These criteria
emphasize more the geotechnical aspects of tunnel design than BART, WMATA, or MTA.
For example, design of a temporary liner, stability problems during tunneling, magnitude
of ground settlement above the tunnel, etc., are considered in these criteria. Also,
various publications related to tunnel design are listed in the References. Since no rock
tunnel section is expected in this system, no design criteria are given for rock tunnels.

In summary, an adequate design guideline for the present time could be established
through a combination of the aforementioned criteria. However, some design concepts
depend on local soil conditions and should be used with caution. For example, the sandy
soil arching effect used in the BART system may not be applicable in other areas, where
the related tunnel performance information is insufficient.

5.4.5 Influence of Geotechnical Parameters on Tunnel Liner Design

Geotechnical information is mainly used in the following functions (Gould, 1979):

(a) Overall design choices: As a basis for the selection of the most favorable
horizontal and vertical alignment, choice between mining or cut-and-cover
tunnel, and selection of tunnel cross-section.

174
 (b) Decision on tunnel support or tunnel liner loading: Soil-like or rock-like
ground loadings, stress-strain properties of supporting medium, influence on
loading of secondary structure (slickensides, joints, shears, etc.).

(c) Selection of lining: Influenced by loading, groundwater, seismic factors,

invert stability, excavation procedure and constructability, possibility of
combining primary and secondary lining, unlined possibility.

(d) Requirements for watertightness or permanent drainage: Draining water,

quantity and quality (pH, resistivity, corrosion test, etc.),design and
maintenance of the hydrostatic pressure relief system.

Basically, the impact on project cost of site investigation for tunnel design can be
less than the effect of the contractor's choice of equipment and methods. Substantial
economies can be realized from the influence of detailed and accurate geotechnical
information on the contractor's bid price, as reflected in his choices of equipment and
method.

As mentioned above, the soils reports by the GSC are not only for the tunnel liner
designer, but for the tunnel route planner, contractor, etc. Further, additional site
investigation will generally be conducted as per section designer's request. Thus,
generally, the section designer will have the geotechnical information needed. However,
since the geotechnical condition may vary along the tunnel route, it is not feasible for the
section designer to consider every local variation in the final design. Therefore, only a
few prime geotechnical parameters are utilized and their values are relatively
conservative. Moreover, some geotechnical parameters used by the section designer are
not recorded or interpreted in the bid documents. Recently, this situation has improved
by the requirement of a pre-bidding geotechnical report from the section designer.

5.5 CONCLUSIONS
Based on the investigative study of the design details of 20 tunnel sections in the
WMATA system and the review of the design criteria for four metro systems, the
following conclusions can be reached:

(1) Present site investigation techniques can provide the geotechnical information
required for design of permanent tunnel liners, when the tunnel location is
accessible, based on currently employed design techniques.

(2) The design criteria for a rigid permanent liner in soft ground may need further
refinement, because the effect of soil pressure re-distribution and the strength
contribution by the steel ribs should be taken into consideration.

(3) The rock bolt pattern, rock block-bolt interaction, and the aging effect of the rock
bolts need further investigation to enable a more economic liner design in rock.

(^) High pressure relief systems of permanent liners need further study in terms of the
medium permeability, grouting effect, exterior hydrostatic pressure, expected
inflow rate, and inflow water quality.

(5) Soil/rock behavior during tunneling requires further research, and the related
pertinent geotechnical parameters need to be identified. Then, the subsurface
investigation program for the design and construction of tunnels can be modified
accordingly.

175
(6) The influential geotechnical parameters for design of tunnels in soft ground are:
overburden pressure, soil type, coefficient of lateral earth pressure, soil strength,
and location of groundwater table.

(7) Some of the influential geotechnical parameters for design of tunnels in rock are:
rock loads, rock quality, rock joint, and groundwater conditions.

(8) Other information which may be of importance can be derived from other
experiences. In particular, information regarding permeability is vital to assist a
contractor in choosing the best means of ground stabilization, especially in soft
ground tunnels. Problems which have occurred with loss of ground through
shrinkage cracks and continuous joints leading to distress or failure of water and
sewer tunnels in fine grained soils suggest that designers should be aware of grain-
size distribution where the predominant soil fraction in non-cohesive soils is less
than about one-third of the probable shrinkage crack opening.

176
6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the study reported herein, the following conclusions and recommendations
.

can be advanced:

1. From the viewpoint of the current stage of construction techniques, an

appropriate combination of the four design criteria reviewed (WMATA, BART, CUTD, and
MTA) is adequate in the guidance of the design and construction of tunnels.

2. As in the MTA System, the requirement for a geotechnical report from the
soilconsultant in the course of tunnel design, and a pre-bidding geotechnical report from
the section designer, explaining how the geotechnical parameters impact on the design and
construction, are an improvement and should be recommended for future tunnel
construction. These should be a part of the bid documents.

3. Although there are several soft ground tunnel liner design theories available
today in the judgment of the authors, Peck's (1969) distortion theory is the most
appropriate one for K<1 conditions. For K > 1, Peck's (1972) approximate theory should be
used. However, the designed liner sections should be checked for the expected jacking
force during the construction stage.

4. There is no standard lining design method for tunnels in rock. Since

construction techniques depend largely on rock conditions encountered, the design
methods are based largely on construction techniques employed. Therefore, it is
recommended that, based on predicted rock conditions, utilizing a few appropriate design
approaches, e.g., rock structure rating, rock mass quality, etc., to design the lining
systems for those rock conditions it is up to the contractor and designer to select the most
economical system. Further modification of the designed liner may be needed when
actual rock conditions and lining performance information become available.

5. Based on intensive parametric analysis of the influence of related

geotechnical parameters on the permanent liner design, it was found that the major
parameters are modified coefficients of lateral earth pressure, rock mass, structure and
stress-displacement relationships of the rock mass. The rate of inflow and the inflow
water quality are also important in the design of the drainage system for tunnel liners in
rock.

6. During the tunnel construction phase, groundwater conditions, soil type and
stratigraphy, soil strength characteristics, bouldery conditions, rock mass quality, major
joint characteristics, and intact rock properties are the influential geotechnical
parameters. The effective site investigation should be directly aimed toward defining
these parameters.

177
7.0 REFERENCES

Alldredge, W.S. (197^), "WMATA's Experience with Contractual Relationships in Tunneling

Contracts," Proceedings , Rapid Excavation and Tunneling Conference, San
Francisco, California, Volume 2, pp. 1137-1162.

Azzouz, A. A., Einstein, H.H., and Schwartz, C.W. (1979), "Three Dimensional Finite
Element Method Analysis for Design of Underground Structures," Monograph, The
Atlanta Research Chamber, edited by D.C. Rose, et al., Tudor Engineering
Company, San Francisco, California. Report to U.S. Department of Transportation,
Urban Mass Transportation Administration, Washington, D.C.

Baker, W.H. (1978), "Ground Deformation at Compaction Grouted Tunnel Section, Building
Number 115, North Eutaw and Biddle Streets, MTA Bolton Hill, Baltimore,
Maryland," Hayward Baker Company, Report to Maryland Mass Transit
Administration, June 30.

Barton, N., Lien, R., and Lunde, J. (1974), "Engineering Classification of Rock Masses for
the Design of Tunnel Support," Rock Mechanics , Volume 6, Number 4, New York,
August, pp. 189-236.

Barton, N., Lien, R., and Lunde, 3. (1975), "Estimation of Support Requirements for
Underground Excavations," Proceedings , Symposium on Rock Mechanics,
Minneapolis, pp. 163-177.

Bathe, K-J, Wilson, E.L., and Peterson, F.E. (1973), "SAP IV: A Structural Analysis
Program for Static and Dynamic Response of Liner Systems," Earthquake
Engineering Research Center, University of California at Berkeley. Report to
National Science Foundation, NTIS, No. PB-221 967.

Bawa, K.S., and Bumanis, A. (1972), "Design Considerations for Underground Structures in
Rock," Proceedings North American Rapid Excavation and Tunneling Conference,
,

Chicago, Illinois, Volume 1, pp. 393-417.

Bieniawski, Z.T. (1973), "Engineering Classification of Jointed Rock Masses," The Civil
Engineer in South Africa, South African Institution of Civil Engineers, Transvaal,
South Africa, pp. 335-343.

Bieniawski, Z.T. (1975), "Case Studies: Prediction of Rock Mass Behavior by the
Geomechanics Classification," Proceedings 2nd Australia-New Zealand Conference
,

on Geomechanics, Brisbane, pp. 36-41.

Birkmyer, J. (1975), "Systems Study of Precast Concrete Tunnel Liners," Bechtel

Incorporated, San Francisco, California. Report to U.S. Department of
Transportation, Transportation Systems Center, Contract No. DOT/TSC-772.

Bock, C.G. (1974), "Rosslyn Station, Virginia: Geology, Excavation, and Support of a
Large, Near Surface, Hard Rock Chamber," Proceedings , Rapid Excavation and
Tunneling Conference, San Francisco, California, Volume 2, pp. 1373-1391.

178
Bock, C.G. (1976), "The As-Build Geotechnical Report: Its Use for Design of Support for
Three Rock Stations, Washington, D.C. Metro," Proceedings , Rapid Excavation and
Tunneling Conference, Las Vegas, Nevada, pp. 430-447.

Bull, A. (1944), "Stresses in the Linings of Shield Driven Tunnels," Proceedings , American
Society of Civil Engineers, Volume 70, November, pp. 1363-1394.

Burns, J.Q., and Richard, R.M. (1964), "Attenuation of Stresses for Buried Cylinders,"
Proceedings , Symposium on Soil-Structure Interaction, Tucson, pp. 378-392.

Cecil, O.S. (1975),"Correlations of Rockbolt-Shotcrete Support and Rock Quality

Parameters Scandinavian Tunnels," Proceedings , Swedish Geotechnical Institute,
in
Number 27, Stockholm.

Chicago Urban Transportation District (CUTD) (1975), Design Criteria by DeLeuw-Novick,

Volumes 1 and 2.

Clough, G.W., Baker, W.H. and Mensah-Dwumah, F. (1978), "Development of Design

Procedures for Stabilized Soil Support Systems for Soft Ground Tunneling," Volume
IV-Case History Studies, Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority System.
Department of Civil Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, California. Report
to U.S. Department of Transportation, Urban Mass Transportation Administration,
Contract No. DC-06-0158, 154 pp.

Clough, G.W., Tan, D.Y., Kuck, W.M., and Koenzen, P. (1977), "Development of Design
Procedures for Stabilized Soil Support Systems for Soft Ground Tunneling," Volume
II - Preliminary Results. Department of Civil Engineering, Stanford University,
Stanford, California. Report to U.S. Department of Transportation, Urban Mass
Transportation Administration, 161 pp.

Cording, E.3., and Deere, D.U. (1972), "Rock Tunnel Supports and Field Measurement,"
Proceedings , North American Rapid Excavation and Tunneling Conference,
Chicago, Illinois, Volume 1, pp. 601-622.

Cording, E.3., and Hansmire, W.H. (1975), "Displacements Around Soft Ground Tunnels,"
General Report, Session IV, Tunnels in Soil, 5th Panamerican Congress on Soil
Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Buenos Aires, November, pp. 571-633.

Cording, E.3., Hendron, A.3., MacPherson, H.H., Hansmire, W.H., 3ones, R.A., Mahar,
3.W., and O'Rourke, T.D. (1975), "Methods for Geotechnical Observations and
Instrumentation in Tunneling," Department of Civil Engineering, University of
Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Illinois. Report to the National Science Foundation,
Volumes 1 and 2, December.

Craig, R.N. and Muir Wood, A.M. (1978), "A Review of Tunnel Lining Practice in the
United Kingdom," TRRL Supplementary Report 335, Transportation and Road
Research Laboratory.

Daeman, 3.3.K. (1975), "Tunnel Support Loading Caused by Rock Failure," University of
Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Report to Missouri River Division Corps of
Engineers, Omaha, Nebraska.

179
Daniel, Mann, Johnson & Mendenhali/Kaiser Engineers (1974), Engineering Design Criteria ,

Maryland Mass Transit Administration.

Daugherty, C.W., Ware, K.R., and Gould, J. P. (1976), "Selection of the Vertical Alignment
of Rapid Transit Tunnels," Proceedings Rapid Excavation and Tunneling
,

Conference, Las Vegas, Nevada, pp. 311-331.

Deere, D.U., Peck, R.B., Monsees, J.E., and Schmidt, B. (1969), "Design of Tunnel Liners
and Support Systems," Department of Civil Engineering, University of Illinois at
Urbana-Champaign, Illinois. Report to U.S. Department of Transportation, Office
of High Speed Ground Transportation, Contract No. 3-0152, February, NTIS No. PB
183799.

Deere, D.U., Peck, R.B., Parker, H.W., and Monsees, J.E. (1970), "Design of Tunnel
Support Systems," Highway Research Record; 339.

DeLeuw, Cather, and Company (1973), Manual of Design Criteria , WMATA Rapid Transit
System, Volumes 1 and 2, 12th revision.

DeLeuw-Novick (1975), Design Criteria , Chicago Urban Transportation District, Volumes 1

and 2.

Drucker, M.A. (1943), "Determination of Lateral Passive Soil Pressure and Its Effect on
Tunnel Stresses," Journal of the Franklin Institute, May.

Einstein, H.H., and Bischoff, N. (1975), "Design of Tunnels in Swelling Rock," Design
Methods in Rock Mechanics Proceedings Sixteenth Symposium on Rock Mechanics,
, ,

pp. 185-195.

Einstein, H.H., Steiner, W., and Baecher, G.B. (1979), "Assessment of Empirical Design
Methods for Tunnels in Rock," Proceedings , Rapid Excavation and Tunneling
Conference, Atlanta, Georgia, pp. 683-706.

Gartung, E., Bauernfield, P., and Bianchini, J-C. (1979), "Three Dimensional Finite
Element Method Study of a Subway Tunnel At Nuremberg," Monograph, The Atlanta
Research Chamber, Edited by D.C. Rose, et al., Tudor Engineering Company, San
Francisco, California. Report to U.S. Department of Transportation, Urban Mass
Transportation Administration, Washington, D.C.

Golder Associates and James F. MacLaren Limited (1976), Tunnel Technology , An

Appraisal of the Art for Application to Transit Systems, The Ontario Ministry of
Transportation and Communications, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, 166 pp.

Gould, "Position Paper on Geotechnical Investigations," Final Draft, Mueser,

J. P. (1979),
Rutledge, Johnston & DeSimone, New York, N.Y., March.

Gularte, F.B. (1979), "Soil Solidification and Compaction Grouting," Tunnel Construction ,
Metropolitan Section-Construction Group, American Society of Civil Engineers.

Habberstaad, J.L., Thompson, R.R., Bates, R.C., and Wallace, G.B. (1974), Fiberglass
Reinforced Polymeric Rock Bolts U.S. Bureau of Mines, Spokane Mining Research
,

Center, Spokane, Washington.

180
Hampton, D., McCusker, T.G., and Essex, R.J. (1980), "Representative Ground Parameters
for Structural Analysis of Tunnels," Volume 2. In Situ Testing Techniques, U.S.
Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Report No.
FHWA/RD-80/013, 319 pp.

Hewett, B.H.M., and Johannesson, S. (1922), Shield and Compressed Air Tunneling , New
York, N.Y.: McGraw-Hill Book Company.

Hoeg, K. (1969), "Stresses Against Underground Structural Cylinders," Journal of the Soil
Mechanics and Foundation Division, American Society of Civil Engineers, Volume
94, Number SM4, pp. 833-858.

Ikeda, K. (1970), "Classification of Rock Conditions for Tunneling," Quarterly Report of

the Railway Technical Research Institute, Volume II, Number 2, Tokyo.

Isenberg, J. (1973), Analytic Modeling of Rock Structural Interaction , Volume 1, Agbabian

Associates, El Segundo, California, prepared for Advanced Research Projects
Agency, Bureau of Mines. NTIS AD-761648.

Kuesel, T.R. (1976), "Washington Metro' Topless Tunnels," Proceedings , Rapid Excavation
and Tunneling Conference, pp. 296-310.

Kulhany, F. (1979), The Atlanta Research Chamber , Chapter 4 - Design, pp. IV- 1 to IV- 13,
edited by D.C. Rose, et al. Tudor Engineering Company, San Francisco, California.
Report to U.S. Department of Transportation, Urban Mass Transportation
Administration, Washington, D.C.

Lama, R.D. (1978), Handbook on Mechanical Properties of Rock , Volume IV,

Aedermannsdorf, Switzerland: Trans Tech Publications, 16 Bearskin Neck,
Rockport, Massachusetts.

Liner, R., and Lauffer, H. (1970), "Rock Reinforcement with Shotcrete," Civil Engineering
(January), Volume 40, Number 1.

Luscher, U. (1966), "Buckling of Soil-Surrounded Tubes," Journal of the Soil Mechanics and
Foundations Division, American Society of Civil Engineers, Volume 92, Number
SM6, pp. 211-228.

MacCollum, D. (1974), "The Bernold Support System," Western Construction, August, pp.
52-55.

MacCollum, D. (1976), "System Safety and Tunnel Support," National Safety News,
December, pp. 81-84.

Mahar, J.W., Parker, H.W., and Wuellner, W.W. (1975), "Shotcrete Practice in
Underground Construction," Prepared for the U.S. Department of Transportation,
Federal Railroad Administration, by the Department of Civil Engineering,
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, August.

Maryland Mass Transit Administration (MTA) (1974), Engineering Design Criteria , by

Daniel, Mann, Johnson and Mendenhall/Kaiser Engineers.

MCAUTO (1976), "ICES STRUDL - Theoretical Manual," McDonnell Douglas Automation

Company, M4008066.
181
MCAUTO (1979), "ICES STRUDL - Users Manual," McDonnell Douglas Automation
Company, M 3357 105.
McCusker, T.G. (1979). Personal communication.

Morgan, H.D. (1961), "A Contribution to the Analysis of Stress in a Circular Tunnel,"
Geotechnique Volume 11, Number 1, pp. 37-46.
,

Mueser, Rutledge, Johnston, & DeSimone (1978), Metro System Subsurface Investigation
Reports, Keyed to Design Sections. Prepared for DeLeuw, Cather, and Company.

Mueser, Rutledge, Wentworth & Johnston, (1967), Final Report, Subsurface Investigation ,
Volumes I, II, III. WMATA Basic System . NTIS PB179653, PB179654, PB179655.

Mueser, Rutledge, Wentworth, Johnston (1969), Subsurface Investigation; Addendum to

Final Report NTIS PB214519.
,

Mueser, Rutledge, Wentworth, <5c Johnston (1976), Final Report, Subsurface Investigation—
Glenmont Route.

Myer, L.R., Brekke, T.L., Korbin, G.E., Kavazanjian, E. and Mitchell, J.K. (1977), "Stand-
up Time of Tunnels in Squeezing Ground," Part 1: A Physical Model Study. 434 B
Davis Hall, University of California, Berkeley, California. Report to U.S.
Department of Transportation, Office of the Secretary, Office of University
Research, Contract No. DOT-OS-50108, 187 pp.

Parsons-Brinckerhoff-Tudor-Bechtel (1968), Civil and Structural Design Criteria , San

Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District.

Paul, S.L., Kesler, C.E., Gaylord, E.H., Mohraz, B., Hendron, A.J., and Peck, R.B. (1974),
"Studies to Improve Tunnel Support Systems," Department of Civil Engineering,
University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois. Report to U.S. Department of
Transportation. Federal Railroad Administration, NTIS PB235762.

Peck, R.B. (1969), "Deep Excavation and Tunneling in Soft Ground," Proceedings , Seventh
International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, State-of-
the-Art Volume, Mexico City, pp. 225-290.

Peck, R.B., Brekke, T.L., and Hampton, D. (1980), "Representative Ground Parameters for
Structural Analysis of Tunnels," Volume 1. Rational Approach to Site Investigation,
U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Report No.
FHWA-RD-78- 132 (to be published).

Peck, R.B., Hendron, A.J., and Mohraz, B. (1972), "State-of-the-Art of Soft Ground
Tunneling," Proceedings , Rapid Excavation and Tunneling Conference, Chicago,
Volume 1, pp. 259-286.

Proctor, R.V., and White, T.L. (1968), Rock Tunneling with Steel Support , Commercial
Shearing and Stamping Company, Youngstown, Ohio.

Proctor, R.V., and White, T.L. (1977), Earth Tunneling with Steel Support , Commercial
Shearing and Stamping Company, Youngstown, Ohio.

182
Ranken, R.E. and Ghaboussi, 3. (1975), "Tunnel Design Considerations— Analysis of
Stresses and Deformations Around Advancing Tunnels," Department of Civil
Engineering, University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois. Report to U.S. Department of
Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration.

Ranken, R.E., and Ghaboussi, 3. (1976), "Analysis of Interaction Between Two Parallel
Tunnels," Department of Civil Engineering, University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois.
Report to U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration.

Ranken, R.E., Ghaboussi, 3., and Hendron, A.3. (1978), "Analysis of Ground-Liner
Interaction for Tunnels," Department of Civil Engineering, University of Illinois,
Urbana, Illinois. Report to Department of Transportation, Office of Secretary.
Report No. UMTA-IL-06-0043-78-3.

Roark, R.3. (1965), Formulas for Stress and Strain , New York, N.Y.: McGraw-Hill Book
Company.

Roark, R.3., and Young, W.C. (1975), Formulas for Stress and Strain , New York, N.Y.:
McGraw-Hill Book Company.

Schmidt, B. (1969), "Settlements and Ground Movements Associated with Tunneling in

Soil," Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois.

Schmidt, B., Matarazzi, B., Dunnicliff, C.3., and Alsup, S. (1976), "Subsurface Exploration
Methods for Soft Ground Rapid Transit Tunnels," Volumes 1 and II. Parsons,
Brinckerhoff, Quade, and Douglas, New York, N.Y., and Soil and Rock
Instrumentation, Inc., Newton Upper Fall, MA. Report to U.S. Department of
Transportation, Urban Mass Transportation Administration, Washington, D.C.

Schwartz, C.W. and Einstein, H.H. (1980), "Improved Design of Tunnel Supports: Volume 1
- Simplified Analysis for Ground Structure Interaction in Tunneling." Prep, for
U.S.D.O.T. /Urban Mass Transportation Administration, Report No. UMTA-MA-06-
0100-80-4, 450 pages.

Singstad, Kehard, November and Hurka (1974), Design Computations , submitted to

DeLeuw, Cather & Company, Washington, D.C.

Talobre, 3. (1957), LaMecanique des Roches, Dunod, Paris, France, pp. 254.

Terzaghi, K. (1942), "Shield Tunnels of the Chicago Subway," Journal, Boston Society of
Civil Engineers, Volume 29, pp. 163-210.

Terzaghi, K. (1943), "Liner Plate Tunnels on the Chicago (111.) Subway," Transaction ,
American Society of Civil Engineers, Volume 108, pp. 970-1007.

Terzaghi, K. (1946), "An Introduction to Tunnel Geology," in Rock Tunneling with Steel
Support , by R.V. Proctor and T.L. White, The Commercial Shearing and Stamping
Company, Ohio.

Terzaghi, K. (1950), "Geological Aspects of Soft Ground Tunneling," Applied .

Sedimentation, edited by P.D. Trask, New York, N.Y.: 3ohn Wiley and Sons.

183
 •

Terzaghi, K. (1960), "From Theory to Practice in Soil Mechanics," edited by Bjerrum, et

al., New York, N.Y.: John Wiley and Sons.

United States Gypsum Company (1979) "Bernold Forming and Reinforcing System," Metal
Products Division, 101 South Wacker Drive, Chicago, Illinois.

Wheby, F.T., and Cikanek, E.M. (1974), "A Computer Program for Estimating Costs of
Tunneling," Proceedings , Rapid Excavation and Tunneling Conference, San
Francisco, California, Volume 1, pp. 185-206.

Wickham, G.E., Tiedemann, H.R., and Skinner, E.H. (1974), "Ground Support Prediction
Model— RSR Concept," Proceedings Rapid Excavation and Tunneling Conference,
,

San Francisco, California, Volume 1, pp. 691-707.

3D
X5 CD a) £
O Ov
0) T3 3
^ -1 "O — o
ZD CD rt -^,\J
3 in O
CD D D .

<rt D ••
;>
03 rf- CjU
^ 0) a
01 r+ CD D
I-* (— O
"-h < O •

O CD D
^ • T]
O X
Jl "1 s
r+ Q > .11

GPO 88 1 273
 FEDERALLY COORDINATED PROGRAM (FCP) OF HIGHWAY
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
The Offices of Research and Development (R&D) of the quality of the human environment. The goals
the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) are are reduction of adverse highway and traffic

responsible for a broad program of staff and contract impacts, and protection and enhancement of the
research and development and a Federal-aid environment.
program, conducted by or through the State highway
transportation agencies, that includes the Highway Improved Materials Utilization and
Planning and Research (HP&R) program and the Durability
National Cooperative Highway Research Program Materials R&D is concerned with expanding the
(NCHRP) managed by the Transportation Research knowledge and technology of materials properties,
Board. The FCP is a carefully selected group of proj- using available natural materials, improving struc-
ects that uses research and development resources to tural foundation materials, recycling highway
obtain timely solutions to urgent national highway materials, converting industrial wastes into useful
engineering problems.* highway products, developing extender or

The diagonal double stripe on the cover of this report substitute materials for those in short supply, and

represents a highway and is color-coded to identify developing more rapid and reliable testing
the FCP category that the report falls under. A red procedures. The goals are lower highway con-
stripe is used for category 1, dark blue for category 2,
struction costs and extended maintenance-free
light blue for category 3, brown for category 4, gray operation.

for category 5, green for categories 6 and 7, and an Improved Design to Reduce Costs, Extend
orange stripe identifies category 0.
Life Expectancy, and Insure Structural
FCP Category Descriptions Safety

1. Improved Highway Design and Operation Structural R&D is concerned with furthering the
latest technological advances in structural and
for Safety
hydraulic designs, fabrication processes, and
Safety R&D addresses problems associated with
construction techniques to provide safe, efficient
the responsibilities of the FHWA under the
highways at reasonable costs.
Highway Safety Act and includes investigation of
appropriate design standards, roadside hardware, Improved Technology for Highway
signing, and physical and scientific data for the Construction
formulation of improved safety regulations. This category is concerned with the research,
development, and implementation of highway
2. Reduction of Traffic Congestion, and
construction technology to increase productivity,
Improved Operational Efficiency
reduce energy consumption, conserve dwindling
Traffic R&D is concerned with increasing the
resources, and reduce costs while improving the
operational efficiency of existing highways by
quality and methods of construction.
advancing technology, by improving designs for

existing as well as new facilities, and by balancing Improved Technology for Highway
the demand-capacity relationship through traffic Maintenance
management techniques such as bus and carpool This category addresses problems in preserving
preferential treatment, motorist information, and the Nation's highways and includes activities in
rerouting of traffic. physical maintenance, traffic services, manage-
3. Environmental Considerations in Highway ment, and equipment. The goal is to maximize
Design, Location, Construction, and Opera- operational efficiency and safety to the traveling

tion public while conserving resources.

Environmental R&D is directed toward identify- Other New Studies

ing and evaluating highway elements that affect This category, not included in the seven-volume

* The complete seven-volume official statement of the FCP is available from

official statement of the FCP, is concerned with
the National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Va. 22161. Single HP&R and NCHRP studies not specifically related
copies of the introductory volume are available without charge from Program
Analysis (HRD-3), Offices of Research and Development, Federal Highway to FCP projects. These studies involve R&D
Administration, Washington, D.C. 20590. support of other FHWA program office research.
M