Reaction Curve of Shotcrete Lining in a

Circular Tunnel Considering Excavation

Process
Jian-gong Chen
Professor, School of Civil Engineering, Chongqing University and Key Laboratory of
New Technology for Construction of Cities in Mountain Area(Chongqing University),
Ministry of Education, Chongqing, China
e-mail: cjg77928@126.com

Shuo-an Zhou
School of Civil Engineering, Chongqing University, Chongqing, China
e-mail: shuoan01@126.com

Ying-chao Xu
School of Civil Engineering, Chongqing University, Chongqing, China
e-mail: 1451847630@qq.com

Cheng Hu
School of Civil Engineering, Chongqing University, Chongqing, China
e-mail: 787355427@qq.com

ABSTRACT
The mechanical behavior of a shotcrete lining is analyzed in this paper using the convergence-
confinement approach. A calculation procedure is presented which is able to provide the
reaction curve of a lining with increasing stiffness, by taking into account the variability due
to time of the shotcrete stiffness and strength, as well as the time-table during tunnel
excavation. The proposed procedure is a very useful tool for understanding the behavior of
this widely used support and providing the change of the safety factor of the lining in
excavation process. From examples calculation, influence of the parameters on the reaction
curve and safety factor such as excavation footage, the cycle time, the time constants of
shotcrete and tunnel radius are discussed.
KEYWORDS: Convergence-confinement approach; Shotcrete lining; Support
reaction curve; Ground response curve

INTRODUCTION
The convergence-confinement method (CCM) is a useful theoretical tool for designing
support for underground excavations in rock. It was developed initially in the 1930s, was further
refined by various researchers and practitioners (Hoek et al. 1980; Brown et al. 1983). Stresses

- 2763 -
 Vol. 17 [2012], Bund. T 2764

and displacements in the rock surrounding tunnels and in the lining or support elements depend,
not only on the rock mass properties and the in situ stress field, but on the type and stiffness of
the lining or support and the timing of its installation (Lombardi 1977; Muir Wood 1979; Ward
1978). The interdependence of these various factors is commonly represented by ground response
curves and support reaction curves on a ground-support interaction diagram (Figure 1).

Figure 1: Schematic of the convergence-

Figure 2: The axisymmetric tunnel model
confinement method

Shotcrete lining is one of the most widely used primary support in tunnel design and
construction. When it is installed in the immediate vicinity of the tunnel face, shotcrete lining
does not carry the full load to which it will be subjected eventually. A large part of the load that is
redistributed around the excavation is carried by the face itself. As the tunnel and face advance
(i.e., away from the installed support), this 'space effect' decreases and the support must carry a
greater proportion of the load that the face had carried earlier. Meanwhile, the stiffness of the
shotcrete lining is progressively increasing due to the increase of its mechanical parameters in the
hardening period. Thats the time effect. When the face has moved well away from the support in
question and enough long time has passed, the shotcrete lining reaches its final strength and
carries effectively, the full design load. These space-time effects not only represent critical
situations for the stability of the support structure during the construction of the tunnel, but also
influence the final equilibrium of the lining and its safety factor. However, the numerical
calculation methods that are currently available are unfortunately not able to simulate the
mechanical behavior of the shotcrete lining considering space-time effects. The convergence-
confinement method requires the lining mean stiffness that cannot be evaluated in advance to
determine the support reaction curve and it does not consider that loads are applied to a structure
with variable rather than constant stiffness. That mains that the CCM cannot to update the
mechanical characteristics of the shotcrete with rational criteria and cannot allow the evaluation
of the true stress state and the safety factor in the shotcrete layer during the loading phase.The
main objective of this paper is to develop a calculation procedure for obtaining the reaction curve
of shotcrete lining with increasing stiffness and load in a circular tunnel.
 Vol. 17 [2012], Bund. T 2765

CONSTRUCTION OF THE GROUND RESPONSE CURVE

The Ground Reaction Curve (GRC) shown in Figure 1 can be constructed from the elasto-
plastic solution of a circular tunnel of radius R, subject to a uniform far field stress, p0 and
uniform internal pressure, pi (see Figure 2). It may happen that the stresses induced in the rock
following excavation will exceed the yield strength of the rock mass and that a plastic zone of
radius Rp will develop around the tunnel. The rock outside the boundary defined by Rp is assumed
to remain elastic. Several solutions of this type, based on the Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion for
the rock, have been published in the past(Hoek and Brown 1980; Muir Wood 1979; Ward 1978;
Reed 1986; Detournay 1986; Papanastasiou and Durban 1997; Chen et al. 1999). The Original
Solution (Brown et al. 1983) which is still widely used in practice is cited here.
The scaled critical (internal) pressure pcr , defined by point E in the GRC of Figure 1, for
which the elastic limit is achieved, is given by the following expression:

pcr = (1 sin ) p0 c cos (1)

where c=the cohesion of the rock-mass, and = the friction angle of the rock-mass.
Provided pi pcr , the relationship between the radial displacements ure and internal pressure pi
in the elastic part of the GRC (i.e., segment OE in Figure 1) is given by the equation:
1+
ure = R( p0 pi ) (2)
E
where = the Poissons ratio of the rock-mass, and E = the elastic modulus of the rock-mass.
For values of internal pressure pi < pcr , the extent of the plastic region R p that develops around
the tunnel is:
1 sin
( p0 + cr cot r ) ( p0 + c cot ) cos 2sin rr
R p = R[ ] (3)
pi + cr cot r
where cr = Residual cohesion of the rock mass and r =Residual friction angle of the rock mass.
the plastic part of the GRC (i.e., the segment EM in Figure 1) is given by
1+
urp = [sin ( p0 + c cot R kp+1 ) / R k + (2 2 )( p0 + cr cot r ) / R k
E
(4)
1 + k N R (k + 1)( N R + 1) R pN R + k N R
( p + c cot )( )R ]
( N R + k ) R ( N R 1)
i r r
Rk

1 + sin 1 + sin
where k = , NR = , = Dilatancy angle of the rock mass.
1 sin 1 sin
 Vol. 17 [2012], Bund. T 2766

CONSTRUCTION OF THE REACTION CURVE OF

SHOTCRETE LINING
For tunnels with low overburden, the shotcrete lining is the main element of ground support,
which is why shotcrete behavior is of prime importance. In Figure 3, the behavior of a shotcrete
circular lining can be characterized through a reaction curve, with radial stiffness k s , which can
be calculated as shown in Eq. (5). Eq. (6) shows how to calculate the maximum support pressure
ps max .

R 2 ( R ts )2
ks = Es (5)
R(1 + s )[(1 2 s ) R 2 + ( R ts ) 2 ]

cs R ts 2
ps max = [1 ( ) ] (6)
2 R

Figure 3: a shotcrete circular lining

where Es =the elastic modulus of the shotcrete; s =the Poisson ratio of the shotcrete; t s =the
lining thickness; cs =the shotcrete compressive strength.

The time-dependent stress-strain behavior of shotcrete

lining
In reality shotcrete displays a time-dependent material behavior with strength and
deformational behavior changing over time. This also includes creeping, relaxation and shrinkage
effects. The time-dependent stress-strain behavior of shotcrete lining is rather complex. The
complexity of the constitutive assumption for shotcrete varies significantly throughout literature
on tunneling from linear elasticity, followed by linear elasticity with time-dependent elastic
modulus, to complex constitutive models based on viscoelasticity, time-dependent non-linear
elasticity and chemo-mechanical models. In this work, the shotcrete elastic modulus and uniaxial
 Vol. 17 [2012], Bund. T 2767

compressive strength can be expressed, during hardening, as a first approximation, through the
following two negative exponential equations (Pottler 1990):

Es ,t = Es ,28 (1 e t ) (7)

cs ,t = cs ,28 (1 e t ) (8)

where Es ,t =the shotcrete elastic modulus at the time t, Es ,28 =the shotcrete elastic modulus after
28 days, cs ,t =the shotcrete uniaxial compressive strength at the time t, cs ,28 =the shotcrete
uniaxial compressive strength after 28 day, and t= the time in hours. and are time constants
( t 1 )

The space effect of the excavation face

The reduction of the pressure p on the ground reaction curve before installation of the lining
is due to the stress release that occurs in the core of the rock ahead of the excavation face.
When shotcrete lining is placed close to the excavation face, the static contribution offered by
the face still exists. Assume that no rockbolts, shotcrete lining or steel sets are installed, the
rock ahead of the face produces a stabilizing effect on the tunnel which can be considered, in
a two-dimensional study, through a fictitious internal pressure pfict that acts on the tunnel
boundary, and which progressively decreases with the advancement of the face (Figure 4).
Apart from the fictitious internal pressure, the pressure due to the shotcrete lining plin also
acts on the boundary of the already excavated tunnel. This pressure increases as the face
advances and the lining is loaded when the tunnel tends to close.

ground response curve

Wall and support pressures

D
pfict

shotcrete lining reaction curve

Plin
u0
Convergence of wall and support
Figure 4: Ground response curve and shotcrete lining reaction curve
Initially, the pressure p of the ground reaction curve is entirely supplied by the fictitious
pressure produced by the face, and at the final equilibrium point (far from the excavation face),
pressure p is caused by the action of the lining. The reduction of the fictitious internal pressure
with the distance x from the face, can be estimated, as a first approximation, from Eq. (9) (Panet
and Guenot 1982):
 Vol. 17 [2012], Bund. T 2768

b
p fict = a p0 (9)
x+b

where a=0.72; b=0.845R. Equation 9 was obtained considering a deep circular tunnel in an elastic
medium.
In drill and blast tunnelling, the graph of the excavation face advancements x, following the
installation of the shotcrete lining is shown in Figure 5. t is the excavation cycle time that is
needed for the lining installation and blasting preparing. is the excavation footage.

distant

x j
t

t
t j time t
Figure 5: Graph of the excavation face advancements x, following the installation of the
shotcrete lining.

THE SAFETY FACTOR OF THE SHOTCRETE LINING

The safety factor of the shotcrete lining Fs is given by the ratio between the pressure loaded on
the shotcrete lining plin and the maximum support pressure of the line ps max :

plin
Fs = (10)
pmax
the pressure loaded on the shotcrete lining plin increases due to the development of the radial
displacement u of the tunnel profile. Each infinitesimal increase u of the radial wall
displacement produces an infinitesimal increase plin of supporting presure. As the elastic
modulus of the shotcrete varies during loading, The safety factor will be varied as the excavation
face advanced.
 Vol. 17 [2012], Bund. T 2769

THE CALCULATION PROCEDURE FOR THE REACTION

CURVE OF SHOTCRETE LINING
We assume that the cycle time t and the excavation footage are invariable in each
excavation round. The reaction curve of the lining and its safety factor vs. time with the distance
from the excavation face can be obtained according to the following calculation procedure:
1. The strength of the shotcrete lining is very small and the face-effect can provide
fictitious pressure to sustain the equilibrium state when the lining is installed near the
excavation face. That is plin =0 and the internal pressure of surrounding rock can be
known through Eq. (11):

b
pi ,0 = p fict x =0 = a p0 = a p0 (11)
0+b

2. Evaluation of u0 with pi ,0 can being known through Eq. (2) or Eq. (4).

Determination of the shotcrete elastic modulus at the previous excavation cycle j-1 through
Eq. (7) and uniaxial compressive strength through Eq. (8):

t j 1
Es ,t j1 = Es ,28 (1 e ) (12)

t j 1
cs ,t = cs ,28 (1 e
j 1
) (13)

Calculation of the lining stiffness through Eq. (5) and the maximum support pressure through
Eq. (6):

R 2 ( R ts )2
k s , j 1 = Es , j 1 (14)
R(1 + s )[(1 2 s ) R 2 + ( R ts ) 2 ]

cs , j 1 R ts 2 (15)
ps max, j 1 = [1 ( ) ]
2 R

Calculation of the fictitious pressure pfict; j through Eq. (9):

b
p fict , j = a p0 (16)
j + b

Determination of increase u j of the radial wall displacement at the excavation cycle j. The
pressure loaded on the shotcrete lining plin , j is:

plin , j = plin, j 1 + ks , j 1u j (17)

 Vol. 17 [2012], Bund. T 2770

The internal pressure of surrounding rock pi , j is:

pi , j = p fict , j + plin, j (18)

The radial wall displacement u j is:

u j = u j 1 + u j (19)

Thus, the increase u j of the radial wall displacement can be calculated through ground
response curve:

When pi pcr , u j = R( p0 pi , j ) / (2Gr ) u j 1 (20)

When pi < pcr it is difficult to get the explicit solution of u j and the convergent iterative
procedure should be applied. Setting the calculation step of the radial wall displacement and
at iteration step i, there is:

u j = u j 1 + i (21)

plin, j = plin, j 1 + ks , j 1i (22)

pi , j = p fict , j + plin, j (23)

The radial wall displacement u j ( g ) can be calculated through ground response curve Eq. (4).

The iterative process may be continued until u j ( g ) u j is very small.

Determination of the safety factor of the shotcrete lining:

plin, j
Fs = (24)
pmax, j 1

Calculation steps 16 are repeated, starting from point C, until point D is reached.

NUMERICAL ANALYSIS OF REACTION CURVE OF

SHOTCRETE LINING
Some calculation examples are given in the following sections by using the proposed method.
 Vol. 17 [2012], Bund. T 2771

Example 1: The Influence of the excavation footage

The footage influences the loads transferred to the lining during excavation process. Short footage
can take advantage of the space effect and decrease the stress release degree and the shotcrete
line take small load at each cycle. A numerical calculation example refers to a 2m radius tunnel,
excavated in fair quality rock mass. The mechanical parameters are given in Table 1. The in situ
hydrostatic stress p0 = 10MPa, the lining thickness t s =30 cm, the time constants = =0.025
h1 , and the cycle time t =6h. Two different excavation footage are assumed ( =2 m and 4m).

Table 1: Mechanical parameters for the calculation example

Parameter Value
Elastic modulus of the rock mass E /MPa 3100
Poissons ratio of the rock mass 0.30
friction angle of the rock mass / 20
cohesion of the rock mass c /MPa 0.12
Residual friction angle of the rock mass r / 18
Residual cohesion of the rock mass cr /MPa 0.12
Dilatancy angle of the rock mass 15
Elastic modulus of the shotcrete after 28 days Es ,28 /MPa 12,000
Poissons ratio of the shotcrete s 0.15
uniaxial compressive strength of the shotcrete after 28 day s ,28 /MPa 28

Figure 6: (a) The reaction curves of the

(b) Trend of the safety factor in the lining
lining for excavation footage 2 m and 4m;
as a function of excavation cycle times for
excavation footage 2 m and 4m;
The reaction curves of the lining are shown in Figure 6(a) for the two cases. Though the
geometrical and mechanical parameters of the shotcrete lining are not varied, the reaction curve
varies according to the different excavation footage. The apparent stiffness of the lining reduces
considerably with an increase of the footage. In conclusion, the equilibrium point moves along
 Vol. 17 [2012], Bund. T 2772

the ground response curve, toward lower pressures, with an increase in the excavation footage. It
can be seen the change of the safety factor in the lining.
The safety factor reduces fairly with an increase of the footage (Figure 6(b)). It reaches the
minimum value at first excavation cycle and increases in the period of each excavation cycle, but
it has a sudden decrease after each blasting operation. Although the minimum value of the safety
factor is lower than 1 for the case of footage 4m, the calculation has continued in elastic
conditions because it is usually more important to identify low values for the safety factor, than
studying the behavior of the shotcrete lining during the yielding phase.
This calculation example shows how the real-time state in the shotcrete lining can be very
important, with a remarkable change of the safety factor in the excavation process. It is also
possible to note how the lower footage produces higher safety factors in the lining with more
excavation cycle times and less distance from the excavation face, under equilibrium conditions.

Example 2: The Influence of the excavation cycle time

The longer excavation cycle time permits the shotcrete to develop higher mechanical
parameters and the lining to appear stiffer (with a steeper reaction curve). The tunnel described in
example 1 was considered in this second example, in order to analyze the influence of the
excavation cycle time. The excavation footage is kept constant ( =2 m) and two different
excavation cycle time are assumed ( t =6h and 12h).
The reaction curves of the lining are shown in Figure 7(a) for the two cases. The apparent
stiffness of the lining decreased fairly and the equilibrium point moves along the ground response
curve toward lower pressures, with an decrease of the cycle time. It is also can be seen how the
longer cycle time produces higher safety factors in the lining with the same excavation cycle
times and the same distance from the excavation face, under equilibrium conditions (Figure 7(b)).

Figure 7: (a) The reaction curves of the (b) Trend of the safety factor in the lining
lining for excavation cycle time 6 h and as a function of excavation cycle times for
12h excavation cycle time 6h and 12h
 Vol. 17 [2012], Bund. T 2773

Example 3: The Influence of the time constants of shotcrete

The tunnel described in example 1 is also considered in this example, in order to analyse the
influence of the time constants of shotcrete on the lining behavior. The excavation footage and
the cycle time are kept constant ( =2 m, t =12h). Two different values of the time constant
and are assumed to describe the trend ( = = 0.02 , = = 0.05 ).

With an increase of the hardening rate ( , greater), the strength static conditions of the
lining improve (Fig. 8a), even though the final safety factor at equilibrium point is slightly
reduced, the minimum value of the safety factor close to the excavation face increases under real-
time conditions.

Figure 8: (a) The reaction curves of the (b) Trend of the safety factor in the lining
lining for the two cases of different time as a function of excavation cycle times for
constants. the two case of different time constants

Example 4: The Influence of the tunnel radius

In this example, the behavior of the shotcrete lining is analyzed for two tunnels with different
radii ( R =2 m and 4 m). The excavation cycle time is t =12h and the footage is =2 m. The
calculated results are shown in Figure 8a and Figure 8b. It is noted that the tunnel radius affects
the stress-strain state of the lining: for tunnels with small radius, the apparent stiffness of the
lining increased considerably and the equilibrium point moves toward higher pressure and smaller
radial displacement of the wall.
The static conditions of the lining result to be more critical close to the face, for the tunnel
with 2m radius; however, with the 4 m diameter tunnel these conditions are more critical far from
the face because the value of the safety factor at the next excavation cycles are smaller than the
first excavation round. The different behavior of the lining in the two cases is due to the influence
of the tunnel radius on the change of the fictitious internal pressure with the distance from the
excavation face (Eq. (9), parameter b).
 Vol. 17 [2012], Bund. T 2774

Figure 9: (a) The reaction curves of the (b) Trend of the safety factor in the lining
lining for the two case of different tunnel as a function of excavation cycle times
radius; for the two case of different tunnel radius

CONCLUSIONS
The understanding of the behavior of a shotcrete lining has always been difficult because this
support presents an increasing stiffness in time due to hardening effects. The widely used
convergence-confinement method is only able to supply the reaction curve of the shotcrete lining
through an average stiffness. The method, however, is not able to give the state of stress and the
safety factors of the lining in real-time, that is, in the short period after installation, or in the long
term. A simple and new procedure for the determination of the reaction curve of the shotcrete
lining has been presented considering the increase in time of the elastic modulus and uniaxial
compressive strength of shotcrete and the schedule during tunnel excavation. By associating the
reaction curve of the lining to the ground reaction curve, the final equilibrium point is evaluated
and the final pressure acting on the shotcrete lining is computed. The proposed calculation
procedure also allows one to obtain the change, in the excavation process, of the state of stress in
the shotcrete lining and therefore the change of the safety factor. In this way, it is possible to
assess the critical conditions of the lining in real-time. Some calculation examples have shown
the applications of the proposed procedure, by giving relevance to the role of typical parameters
on the lining reaction, both changing the safety conditions in real-time and the final static
equilibrium between the tunnel and the support.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The research reported here was supported by Grant No. 51027004 from the National Natural
Science Foundation of China.
 Vol. 17 [2012], Bund. T 2775

REFERENCES
1. Hoek, E. and Brown, E. T. (1980) Underground excavations in rock, The Institution of
Mining and Metallurgy, London.527.
2. Brown, E. T., Bray, J. W., Ladanyi, B. and Hoek, E. (1983) Ground response curves for rock
tunnels, Geotech. Eng. ASCE J. 109, 15-39.
3. Lombardi, G. (1977) "Long-Term Measurements in Underground Openings and their
Interpretation with Special Consideration to the Rheological Behavior of Rock," Field
Measurements in Rock Mechanics, K. Kovari, ed., Vol. 2, A. A. Balkema, Rotterdam,
Holland, 1977, 839-858.
4. Muir Wood, A. M. (1979) Fourteenth Sir Julius Wernher Memorial LectureGround
Behaviour and Support for Mining and Tunnelling, Tunnelling, 79, M. J. Jones, ed., The
Institution of Mining and Metallurgy, London, England, xi-xxii.
5. Ward, W. H. (1978) "Eighteenth Rankine LectureGround Supports for Tunnels in Weak
Rocks," Geotechnique, Vol. 28, No. 2, London, England, 133-170.
6. Reed, M. B. (1986) Stresses and Displacements around a Cylindrical Cavity in Soft Rock,
IMA Journal of Applied Mathematics, J., 36 (3), 223-245.
7. Detournay, E. (1986) Elastoplastic Model of a Deep Tunnel for a Rock with Variable
Dilatancy, Rock Mech. Rock Engng, J., 19 (1), 99-108.
8. Papanastasiou, P. and Durban, D. (1997) Elastoplastic Analysis of Cylindrical Cavity
Problems in Geomaterials, International Journal for Numerical Analytical Methods in
Geomechanics, J., 21, 133~149.
9. Chen X, Tan C P, Haberfield C M. (1999) Solutions for the Deformations and Stability of
Elastoplastic Hollow Cylinders Subjected to Boundary Pressures, International Journal for
Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics, J., 23 (8), 779~800.
10. Pottler, R. (1990) Time-dependent rock-shotcrete interaction. A numerical shortcut.,
Comput Geotechn. J., 9, 149-169.
11. Panet, M., Guenot, A. (1982) Analysis of convergence behind the face of a tunnel,
Proc.,Tunnelling 82, Brighton, J.,197-204.

EJGE, 2012