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

net/publication/228695379

Selecting efficient support methods for tunnels

Article · January 2006

CITATIONS READS
2 1,099

2 authors:

Hossam Toma Hans Georg Jodl

Zagazig University TU Wien
7 PUBLICATIONS   6 CITATIONS    10 PUBLICATIONS   8 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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

I'm working now on research about management of consulting projects. View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Hossam Toma on 07 April 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 International Symposium
on :
Utilization of underground space in urban areas
6-7 November 2006, Sharm El-Sheikh, Egypt

Selecting efficient support methods for tunnels

Hossam Toma1 and Hans G. Jodl2

1. Assistant Professor, Department of Construction Engineering and Utilities, Faculty of Engineering, Zagazig
University, Zagazig, Egypt. E-mail address: [email protected]
2. Professor and Head of Institute of Interdisciplinary Construction Process Management, Faculty of Civil
Engineering, Vienna University of Technology, Vienna, Austria. E-mail: [email protected]

ABSTRACT
Construction of a tunnel consists of many activities during the construction phase of the project,
supporting is one of these activities. Immediate support elements are provided to control ground
movement caused by stress redistribution during tunnel drive. Certain support elements are assembled
in the excavated areas of crown, side wall and additionally on the tunnel face if necessary. Typical
support elements are rock bolts, reinforced sprayed concrete, girders, etc. Loose ground and weak rock
within the following rounds can also be supported using methods such as pipe umbrella, forepoling,
earth wedge, etc. The Selection of efficient support methods for tunnelling is very important to reduce
problems during construction and maintain project cost and time within the project budget and the
planned schedule. This paper introduces a model that helps decision maker in selecting tunnel support
methods in the conceptual phase of the project. The model calculates efficiency percentages of support
methods based on project conditions. The model provides the user with a report including support
methods and their efficiency percentages ranked in descending order.

Key words: Tunnel construction, support methods, efficiency percentage

1. INTRODUCTION
Support of tunnel side walls and crown as well as tunnel face is very essential when the tunnel is
constructed in weak ground. Lauffer (1958) proposed that the stand-up time for an unsupported span is
related to the quality of the ground in which the span is excavated. In a tunnel, the unsupported span is
defined as the span of the tunnel or the distance between the face and the nearest support, if this is
greater than the tunnel span. When the excavated ground is hard rock the stand-up time can reach, in
some cases, up to years. Weak ground which has a short stand-up time –might be less than 1 hour–
needs to be supported immediately after excavation. There are several methods which can be used for
tunnel side wall and crown support, these methods are rock bolts, dowels, steel arches, sprayed
concrete, and precast concrete segments. Forepoling, pipe umbrella, doorframe slab, earth wedge, and
sprayed concrete can also be used for supporting the tunnel face.

Selection of an efficient support method is a key factor for the success of the tunnel project. Efficient
method is the method which satisfies efficiently the controlling factors which are technical and non-
technical factors.

Almost all the empirical models that are used for determining support methods are related to the
ground classification systems. Written rules for selecting ground support were first formulated in 1946
by Terzaghi. Deere et al (1970) presented ground support recommendations for tunnels excavated
conventionally and by TBMs based on both of Terzaghi’s classification and the Rock Quality
Designation index (RQD). Wickham et al (1972) suggested also support methods for tunnels during
construction based on the Rock Structure Rating (RSR) classification system. The above mentioned
systems are not widely used now but they were the nucleus for the newer systems. The Geomechanics
Classification or the Rock Mass Rating (RMR) system, which first published by Bieniawski in 1976,
and its modifications in 1989 (Bieniawski (1989)) suggest guidelines for the selection of support in
tunnels in rock for which the value of RMR has been determined. In 1974, Barton et al proposed a
Tunnelling Quality Index (Q) for the determination of rock mass characteristics and tunnel support
requirements, this system was updated by Grimstad and Barton (1993) to reflect the increasing use of
steel fibre reinforced sprayed concrete in underground excavation support. The guideline for
geomechanical design of cyclic tunnelling (Austrian Society for Geomechanic, 2001) considers
decisive geomechanical factors. All the above mentioned systems suggest support methods based only
on the ground conditions ignoring other factors that may have a significant weight in choosing the
support method. The introduced model takes into consideration the most important factors that may
have influence on the selection of the support methods.

2. SELECTING EFFICIENT SUPPORT METHOD MODEL

The proposed model represents a quantitative calculated pre-selection of an efficient tunnel support
method assisting decision makers in the conceptual phase of the project. The model calculates
efficiency percentages (EPs) of the support methods for controlling factors which represent project’s
technical and non-technical conditions. Calculation of the EP for a support method depends on two
factors which are the efficiency degrees (EDs) of the method for the particular controlling factors and
the importance percentages (IPs) of the controlling factors.

2.1 Controlling factors

Four technical factors are used to represent the main projects’ technical conditions which control the
selection of support methods, these factors are ground conditions, tunnel depth, constructibility, and
tunnel excavation method (Toma, 2005). Non-technical factors are cost and time. Three matrices –
tables (1), (2) and (3) – were developed to combine the controlling factors and support methods. The
matrices were sent to tunnel experts working for 35 construction companies, 28 designers, and 12
clients. Tunnel experts of these organizations were asked to fill out the matrices by giving their
evaluations for the EDs of the support methods related to the controlling factors using a scale ranging
from 1 (the worst) to 4 (the best). According to the scale a support method will have “very good” ED
for the controlling factor when the degree is “4” and when the degree is “1”, the method will not have
sufficient efficiency degree to work for the controlling factor. “4” is the maximum efficiency degree
used in the model. Four construction companies, two designers and two clients filled out and returned
back the matrices. After collecting the data, average matrices were developed based on the experts’
evaluations and their notes. The ED values in the average matrices are the average values of the
experts’ EDs, the model uses these average EDs for the calculations of the support methods’ EPs. The
user of the model should feed it with technical data of the particular project to enable the model in
determining which ED values will be used for the calculations. The form of table (4) is used to collect
the project technical data which are needed for selecting the support method. When the user selects the
values which represent the project conditions, the model will use the EDs which correspond to the
project conditions, for the calculations.

2.2 Importance percentages (IPs) of the controlling factors

The IPs of the controlling factors which will be calculated in this section represent the relative
importance of each controlling factor compared to the importance of the other factors which control
the selection of the support method.

The criterion affecting the magnitude of the controlling factor is “how much does the factor control
the selection decision of support methods?” The user of the model has to answer this question when
he/she determines the importance degree (ID) of each controlling factor. The IDs which will be
determined by the user will be used to calculate the IPs of the controlling factors.

Table (1) Comparing between support methods based on technical factors

Support Methods Side wall & Crown support Face support

Forepoling

Doorframe
Rock bolts

Steel arch

segments

umbrella
concrete

concrete

concrete
Sprayed

Sprayed
Dowels

Precast

wedge
Earth
Factors

Pipe

slab
Ground is soil
0 - 20
(RMR values)
Rock quality

21 - 40
41 - 60
Ground conditions

61 – 80
Over 80
Failure due to weathering
Failure due to moving water
Prevent failure

Failure due to corrosion of

support
Failure due to squeezing &
swelling
Failure due to overstress
Less than 30m
30 – 50m
Tunnel depth

50 – 100m
100 – 500m
500 – 1000m
Over 1000m
Circular or mouth cross section
Oval or Horseshoe cross section
Constructibility

Other cross sections

Less than 1.5m
Tunnel span

1.5 – 4m
4 – 6m
6 – 10m
Over 10m
Excavator / Front shovel / Backhoe
Hand excavation
Tunnel excavation

Drill & blasting

methods

Roadheader
Micro-tunnelling machine
Shield machine
TBM (open machine)

Table (2) Comparing between support methods based on cost

Support Methods Side wall & Crown support Face support
Earth wedge
Forepoling

Doorframe
Rock bolts

Steel arch

segments

umbrella
concrete

concrete

concrete
Sprayed

Sprayed
Dowels

Precast

Pipe

slab

Factors
 Cost / 1m length of tunnel

Table (3) Comparing between support methods based on time

Support Methods Side wall & Crown support Face support

Steel arch

Doorfram
Forepoling
segments

umbrella
concrete

concrete

concrete
Sprayed

Sprayed
Dowels

Precast

wedge
e slab
Earth
Rock
bolts

Pipe
Factors

Production rate = 75m/week

Table (4) Technical data of the project

Select one option for each factor
Tunnel span
□ 1.5m or less
□ 2.0 – 4.0m
□ 5.0 – 6.0m
□ 7.0 – 10.0m
□ over 10m
RMR value
□ 0 - 20
□ 21 - 40
□ 41 - 60
□ 61 - 80
□ over 80
□ ground is soil
Select failure reasons (you can select more than one reason)
□ failure due to weathering
□ failure due to moving water
□ failure due to support corrosion
□ failure due to squeezing and swelling
□ failure due to overstress
Tunnel depth
□ 30m or less
□ 31 – 50m
□ 51 – 100m
□ 101 – 500m
□ 501 – 1000m
□ over 1000m
Tunnel cross section profile
□ circular or mouth profile
□ oval or horseshoe
□ other profiles
Tunnel excavation method
□ excavator / front shovel / backhoe
□ hand excavation
□ drill & blasting
□ roadheader
□ micro-tunnelling machine
□ shield machine
□ TBM (open machine)
The scale of the ID is between zero and ten where a zero value indicates that the controlling factor is
not important for selecting the support method. The most important controlling factors should be
assigned the highest ID which is ten. The higher the ID value the higher the role of the controlling
factor in the selection process.

The model uses equation (1) to calculate the IPs of the controlling factors using the ID values which
are assigned by the user. The user will assign the IDs of the controlling factors using the form shown
in table (5).

ID
IP = n i * 100 (1)
i
∑ ID
i =1 i

Where: IPi = importance percentage of factor “i”; IDi = importance degree of factor “i” which is given
by the user of the model; n = total number of factors

A controlling factor named “Others” is added to the controlling factors. This factor represents the
factors that may have an influence on the selection decision of the support method, from user’s point
of view, and these factors are not included among the controlling factors. If the user assigns an ID to
this factor in the form of table (5) he/she should assign EDs for the support methods related to the
factor “Others”. The model will assign the IDs of the controlling factors to their sub-factors, for
example the ID for ground conditions “X1” will be assigned to the “RMR-value” factor and the failure
modes factors (see table (5)).

2.3 Calculations of the support methods’ EPs

Calculation of the EP for any support method has two steps. At first, the model calculates weighted
efficiencies of the method for each controlling factor by multiplying the IP of the controlling factor by
the ED of the method for that controlling factor. Equation (2) illustrates how to calculate the weighted
efficiency of a support method “A” for a controlling factor “i”, this calculation will be repeated “n”
times which is the number of controlling factors for support method “A” (see figure 1). The second
step of the calculations includes dividing the summation of the weighted efficiencies by the maximum
efficiency degree to determine the EP of the support method. Equation (3) illustrates the second step
of the calculations. When the calculated EP of a support method is zero, this means that this support
method could not satisfy one or more of the project’s controlling factors. The model ranks the support
methods with non-zero EPs in descending order. The following example illustrates the calculation
steps.

Table (5) Form used to assign IDs to the factors

IDs given Controlling factors Sub-Factors will have the same ID of the ID that will be used in
by the user parent factors the model
X1 Ground conditions RMR value X1
Failure due to weathering X1
Failure due to moving water X1
Failure due to corrosion of support X1
Failure due to squeezing & swelling X1
Failure due to overstress X1
X2 Tunnel depth --------- X2
X3 Tunnel shape --------- X3
X4 Tunnel span --------- X4
X5 Tunnel excavation method X5
 X6 Cost --------- X6
X7 Time --------- X7
X8 Others --------- X8
Total number of ID values n = 13 values

No

Yes

Figure 1 Calculations of support methods’ efficiency percentages

IP
W Ai = ED Ai * i (2)
100

n
∑W Ai
EPA = i =1 * 100 (3)
T
Where: “A” = a support method such as “Rock bolts”, “Shotcrete”, or “Forepoling” etc.; W Ai = the
weighted efficiency of support method “A” for controlling factor “i“; ED
Ai = efficiency degree of
support method “A” for controlling factor “i“; IPi = importance percentage of the controlling factor
“i“ related to the other controlling factors; T = the maximum efficiency degree which is “4”; EP =
A
efficiency percentage of support method “A”; i = controlling factors of support methods; and n =
number of controlling factors for support methods.

Example:
If “A” and “B” are two support methods and they have the EDs shown in table (6) for controlling
factors “X” and “Y”. The maximum efficiency degree is “4” and the IPs of factors “X” and “Y” are
70% and 30% respectively. Calculation of the weighted efficiency of method “A” for controlling
factor “X” is as follows (application of equation 2):

Table (6) Efficiency degrees (EDs) of methods “A” and “B” for factors “X” and “Y”
Methods A B
Factors
X 3 2
Y 2 4

- ED
AX = 3 (this value is shown in table 6), and IPX = 70%
-W
AX = 3 * 0.7 = 2.1 (this value is the weighted efficiency of method “A” for factor “X”)

The weighted efficiency of method “A” for factor “Y” will be calculated as follows:
- ED = 2 (this value is shown in table 6), and IPY = 30%
AY
-W
AY = 2 * 0.3 = 0.6 (this value is the weighted efficiency of method “A” for factor “Y”)

The total weighted efficiency of method “A” = W AX + W AY = 2.1 + 0.6 = 2.7. The same

calculations will be done for method “B” (see table (7)). The EP of method “A” = 2 .7 * 100 =
4
67.5%, where “4” is the maximum efficiency degree (application of equation 3). The EP of method
“B” = 2 .6 * 100 = 65%. The calculations show that method “A” has marginally higher efficiency
4
percentage (EP) than method “B”.

3. APPLICATION OF THE MODEL

A computer program was developed to facilitate the use of the model. The program is written using
Visual Basic 6 programming language. Data of three real projects were used to check the model
validity. Projects that were used are “Wienerwald tunnel (Austria)”, “U2/2 Taborstraße (Austria)”
and “Gotthard tunnel – Amsteg section lot 252 (Switzerland)”. Table (8) shows the results of the
model compared with the support methods that are used really in the projects.

As shown in table (8) the support methods which have the highest EPs and they are suggested by the
model for the “Wienerwald tunnel” project, and the “U2/2 Taborstraße” project are similar to the
methods that are used in the project. There is a difference between the results of the model and the real
case in the “Gotthard tunnel – Amsteg section lot 252”project. For this project, the model suggests the
use of the “Precast concrete segments” as the most efficient method for the project and the “Sprayed
concrete” comes in the second rank. In the real project the “Sprayed concrete” is used. This difference
in results is not significant taking into consideration that the difference between efficiency percentages
of the “Precast concrete segments” and the “Sprayed concrete” as resulted from the model was not big
at the same time the model suggests the support method in the conceptual phase of the project and
further studies should be done before the final decision. The results of the model prove its validity and
soundness of the program.

Table (7) Weighted efficiencies of methods “A” and “B”

 Methods A B
Factors
X 3 * 0.7 = 2.1 2 * 0.7 = 1.4
Y 2 * 0.3 = 0.6 4 * 0.3 = 1.2
Total weighted efficiencies 2.1 + 0.6 = 2.7 1.4 + 1.2 = 2.6
Table (8) Comparison between the results of the model and the support methods used in the projects
Methods Support method used in the Support method selected by the
Project project model
Wienerwald tunnel Precast concrete segments Precast concrete segments
U2/2 Taborstraße Sprayed concrete Sprayed concrete
Gotthard tunnel – Amsteg Sprayed concrete Precast concrete segments
section lot 252

4. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The authors would like to acknowledge Professor Herbert H. Einstein, Department of Civil and
Environmental Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, USA, for his valuable
contribution and opinions that helped in finishing this work. The authors thank also the staff of the
projects, which used for testing the model, for their help and supplying us with the required
information.

5. REFERENCES
1. Barton, N., Lien, R., and Lunde, J. 1974. “Engineering Classification of Rock Masses for the
Design of Tunnel Support”, Rock Mechanics, Vol. 6, No. 4.
2. Bieniawski, Z.T. 1976. “Rock mass classification in rock engineering”, In Exploration for
rock engineering, proc. of the symp., (ed. Z.T. Bieniawski) 1, 97-106. Cape Town: Balkema.
3. Bieniawski, Z.T. 1989. “Engineering rock mass classifications”, Wiley, New York.
4. Deere, D. U., Peck, R. B., Parker, H. W., Monsees, J. E., and Schmidt, B. 1970. “Design of
Tunnel Support Systems”, Highway Res. Rec. No. 339:26-33.
5. Grimstad, E. and Barton, N. 1993. “Updating the Q-System for NMT”, Proc. int. symp. On
sprayed concrete - modern use of wet mix sprayed concrete for underground support,
Fagernes, (eds Kompen, Opsahl and Berg). Oslo: Norwegian Concrete Assn.
6. Lauffer, H. 1958. “Gebirgsklassifizierung für den Stollenbau”, Geol. Bauwesen, 24(1), 46-51.
7. Terzaghi, K. 1946. “Rock Defects and Loads on Tunnel Support”, Rock Tunnelling with Steel
Support, R. V. Proctor and T. White, Commercial Shearing Co., Youngstown, OH: 15-99.
8. Toma, H. 2005. “A computer model for selecting efficient tunnelling systems”, PhD
dissertation, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Vienna University of Technology, Vienna, Austria.
9. Wickham, G. E., Tiedemann, H. R., and Skinner, E. H. 1972. “Support Determinations Based
on Geologic Predictions”, Proceedings, First Rapid Excavation and Tunnelling Conference,
Chicago, VOII.
10. Vavrovsky, G-M., Schubert, W., Ayaydin, N., and Schwab, P. 2001. “Richtlinie für die
Geomechanische Planung von Untertagebauarbeiten mit zyklischem Vortrieb“ Österreichische
Gesellschaft für Geomechanik (Ed.), Salzburg

View publication stats