TH

16 Australasian Tunnelling Conference 2017

30 October – 1 November 2017

Shotcrete support design in blocky ground: Revisited

Y. Christine1, D. Oliveira2 and H. Asche3
1
Jacobs Engineering Group
NSW, AUSTRALIA
2
Jacobs Engineering Group and University of Wollongong
NSW, AUSTRALIA
3
Aurecon and The University of Queensland
Brisbane, QLD, AUSTRALIA
E-mail: yoshe.christine@jacobs.com

Abstract: A common and useful methodology adopted for design of shotcrete support in blocky
ground was proposed by Barrett and McCreath [1]. The assessment assumes that shotcrete used in
blocky ground act as a thin skin spanning between rock bolts supporting unstable blocks. The
shotcrete is checked for four failure mechanisms, namely adhesive failure, direct shear failure, flexural
failure and punching shear failure, with the corresponding factors of safety assessed. In practice,
modifications are necessary in order to consider durability allowances and to adapt the equations to
use in conjunction with codes. These include not only strength reduction and load factors but also
adjustments to how some of the input parameters are estimated. This paper describes estimates of
flexural strength, shear strength and punching shear, and the effect of fibres in the shotcrete in
accordance with existing codes or guidelines. In addition, recent safe working requirements with
respect to provision of supported ground for man entry also require assessment of early shotcrete
strength performance and ground loading development on the shotcrete with excavation advance. As
a result, this paper revisits the method originally proposed by Barrett and McCreath [1] and discusses
how it has been modified to satisfy these requirements in some of the recent tunnelling projects in
Sydney, Australia.

Keywords: Barrett and McCreath, small block analysis, blocky ground, shotcrete, rock bolts, shotcrete
design, tunnel design, limit state.

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1. Shotcrete in tunnelling

The use of plain or reinforced shotcrete in an underground excavation has been well established for
decades. However, the interaction between rock and shotcrete is complex ([2], [3]). Shotcrete seals
the rock and prevents drying out, adhesion between the rock and the shotcrete retains blocks, and the
shotcrete acts in shear, bending and compression to stabilise the excavation (Figure 1). Because of
this complexity, a number of empirical design methods have been published, based on a given
excavated span and relevant ground conditions. A commonly used empirical method is the Q-system
proposed as given in the updated version Barton and Grimstad [4].

Ground support systems using thin shotcrete only are rare, and the more common situation is that the
ground support also includes a pattern of rock bolts, a situation that is also covered by the empirical
design methods. Empirical design methods alone, however, are not accepted as sufficient
documentation in current Australasian civil tunnel design practice (and this paper is not intended to
include a critique of the level of documentation and excessive reliance on bridge codes that has
swamped the industry). Therefore, there is a need to use deterministic methods for design. In
addition, deterministic methods can allow consideration of special situations, for example, early
loading.

A commonly used analytical based approach for design of shotcrete support in blocky ground was
proposed by Barrett and McCreath [1]. This paper discusses the methodology described by Barrett
and McCreath [1] and proposes some modifications.
Figure 1 - Rock bolts and shotcrete used to support blocky rock (after [5])

1.2. Design methods and structural codes

Oliveira et al [6] discuss the application of AS 5100 [7] in tunnel design, and identify a cause of
concern in using limit state codes in tunnel design as being the implicit assumption that load and
resistance can be considered as independent probability distributions. Table 1 shows some tunnel
design methods and identifies the extent of independence between load and resistance. Barrett and
McCreath's method is one of the methods where this assumption of independence is reasonable, and
therefore, the use of partial factors is not unreasonable. However, for some important caveats refer to
Oliveira et al [6].

Table 1 - Design methods

Load and resistance Load is affected by Load and resistance arise
assumed to be independent resistance from the same source or are
highly interdependent
Design Barrett and McCreath Beam spring analyses 2D of 3D models of tunnels,
Method Block analysis and design (actions are increased if including continuum and
(eg UNWEDGE) lining is stiffer) discontinuum methods
Groundwater loading on
tanked tunnel

Barrett and McCreath [1] adopt a simple Factor of Safety (FoS) method where the resistance is
divided by the load to derive the FoS. However, splitting the overall FoS into components is also
possible, which makes the method amenable to harmonising the calculations with modern limit state
codes, lately a common requirement in bureaucratically derived conditions of contract. For example,
Uotinen [8] presents an adaptation of the Barrett and McCreath’s method to the eurocodes.

The load suggested by Barrett and McCreath [1] is a pyramid shaped rock wedge with the triangular
faces at 60° to the base. It is uncertain whether such a large wedge has ever been seen between four
rock bolts in any real rock mass. Their suggestion is that this wedge forms a maximum credible load,
thus theoretically possible. However, there are difficulties with this approach in a rock mass like
Hawkesbury Sandstone, because adopting a block that is almost impossible to form interposes an
unknown partial load factor into the calculation. We propose that the rock block to be generated from
consideration of what is possible, and to which a partial load factor is then applied.

The resistance calculated by Barrett and McCreath [1] is simply related to properties of shotcrete
strength and therefore this part of the calculation is amenable to using a capacity reduction factor.
2. SHOTCRETE FAILURE MODES

2.1. General

A few general remarks need to be made to introduce the methodology in Barrett and McCreath [1]:
The shotcrete is considered to be a square plate of uniform thickness bounded within a
square pattern of rock bolts – the global stability of the tunnel is mainly provided by the rock
bolts and the shotcrete carries the load of rock between the bolts.
The shotcrete is considered as a flat plate only and the effect of arching is ignored.
The load on the shotcrete is defined as a pyramid and eccentricity is ignored. This paper
looks at alternatives to this assumption.
A Factor of Safety is calculated simply as the capacity divided by the load. This paper
discusses the application of partial load factors and capacity reduction factors as an
alternative approach to expressing the system safety.

Barrett and McCreath [1] state that there are four (4) main failure mechanisms for shotcrete loaded by
blocky ground between rock bolts and under static conditions, namely adhesive failure, flexural failure,
direct shear failure and punching shear failure (Figure 2). Another two (2) failure mechanisms exist
(compressive failure and tensile failure) but these are not seen as being critical for conventional
wedge loading. The capacity of the shotcrete lining to resist the main four failure mechanisms is fully
detailed in their paper.

Figure 2 - Shotcrete failure modes (after [1])

2.2. Adhesive failure

This failure occurs due to adhesion loss between shotcrete and the rock surface, when shotcrete
peels off from the rock (Figure 3). Adhesion between the shotcrete and the substrate (or the surface
to which the shotcrete is applied) plays a vital role in defining the limiting failure mechanism where
cracking does not initially occur in the substrate itself. For the steel fibre-reinforced and mesh
reinforced linings, direct shear failure tends to occur when adhesion to the rock mass is adequate [1].
Whereas, flexural and punching shear failure occurs when adhesion is poor and de-bonding has
occurred.
The following is the shotcrete capacity to resist de-bonding ( ) (Barrett and McCreath [1], Eq. 2):

(1)

where a is adhesive strength of shotcrete, s is rock bolt spacing and a is adhesive bond width.

The adhesive strength depends on several factors including shotcrete mix, rock type, cleaning of the
bonding surface. The adhesive length, suggested to be 30-50 mm by Barrett and McCreath [1], has
been based upon previous research which is now quite outdated. Thus, it is a worthwhile topic to be
discussed and more research may be required.

Figure 3 - Shotcrete failure model for adhesion (after [1])

2.3. Direct shear failure

Direct shear failure occurs when the shotcrete shears around the perimeter of the loaded area (Figure
4). The capacity to resist failure in direct shear ( ) can be estimated as follows (Barrett and
McCreath [1], Eq. 3).

(2)

where is the direct shear strength of the shotcrete. As is determined partially by the action of
fibres, the shotcrete thickness is corrected to allow for , a corrosion allowance for the fibres to
take durability into considerations. However, it is important to note that corrosion loss considers the
loss of fibre strength and not necessarily the loss of strength of the concrete matrix. The concrete
compressive strength and thus shear strength is less likely to be impacted by corrosion of the fibres,
especially if the shear resistance is only based on the shear strength of plain concrete. Therefore,
using the reduced section to calculate shear capacity is simply conservative simplifying assumption.

Figure 4 - Shotcrete failure model for direct shear (after [1])

2.4. Flexural failure

This failure occurs when adhesion between the rock and the shotcrete has been lost. The shotcrete
can still be effective in preventing the rock mass from loosening by acting as a slab in bending [1].
Barrett and McCreath use the analogy that the debonded shotcrete acts in the same way as a two-
way slab with drop panels, which is an arrangement well known to building structural engineers
(Figure 5). Barrett and McCreath use the rules found in many structural codes such as AS3600 [9] to
calculate the moment. However, some corrections are required for the Barrett and McCreath formula
and this paper proposes the following modified formula to estimate the total design moment ( ) of
shotcrete (refer to Barrett and McCreath [1], Eq. 4 for comparison):
(3)

where c is the width of the rock bolt face plate and W is the weight of the rock block. The corrections
or adjustments were twofold:

The load to be carried is only for half of the slab, i.e. , noting that Barrett and McCreath
[1], Eq. 4 is dimensionally incorrect as written, if Barrett and McCreath [1], Eq. 1 is used.
Finally, a small correction for the clear span is suggested as required by AS3600 Fig 6.1.4(B)
[9]. However, if the bolts are installed first and handlebar plates adopted, we would suggest
that AS3600 Fig 6.1.4(B) shall be carefully reviewed prior to deciding on the appropriate span.

The design moments in a span is then determined by multiplying the total static moment above ( )
by the relevant factor given in Tables 6.10.4.3(A) or 6.10.4.3(B) of AS 3600 [9] as appropriate. For
example, for interior spans the negative moment may be taken as acting at bolt location while
the positive moment as acting mid-span. Barrett and McCreath [1] suggested a negative span
of with maximum positive of . It is important to note that for the validity of these
assumptions there shall be at least two continuous spans in each direction with a support grid that is
rectangular, except that individual supports may be offset up to a maximum of 10% of the span in the
direction of the offset. In addition, the ratio of the longer span to the shorter span between rock bolt
support shall not be greater than two (2).

It is important to note that the Barrett and McCreath’s method [1] was developed on the assumption
that shotcrete is applied first followed by installation of the rock bolts, thus, with bolt plates acting as
drop panels. If rock bolts are installed first without the use of handle bars, the method is no longer
strictly applicable.

The flexural capacity of steel fibre reinforced shotcrete ( ) can be estimated as follows (Barrett and
McCreath [1], Eq. 5, amended to allow for corrosion of the steel fibres):
(4)

Figure 5 - Flexural model (after [1]).

2.5. Punching shear failure

Associated with the flexural model is the possibility for punching shear (Figure 6). As with equation
(3) above, formula to calculate the critical shear load ( ) requires modification (c.f. Barrett and
McCreath [1], Eq. 7):
(5)

The distance ( ) between the edge of face plate and perimeter of bolt can be estimated as follows
(Barrett and McCreath [1], Eq. 8):
(6)

where is the diagonal shear strength of the concrete. The capacity of slab to resist punching shear
failure ( ) can be estimated as follows (Barrett and McCreath [1], Eq. 9 modified to allow for
corrosion of the steel fibres):
(7)

where is the punching shear strength of shotcrete.

Figure 6 - Shotcrete failure models for punching shear (after [1])

It is important to note that, similarly to the flexural capacity, the assumption of the Barrett and
McCreath’s approach is that the plates act as a drop panel on the intrados of the shotcrete. In cases
where the rock bolts are installed first, handle or spider bars must be used to provide structural
connection. Otherwise the assumption is no longer applicable.

3. LOAD AND RESISTANCE DESIGN PARAMETERS

3.1. Load from rock wedges and live loads

Barrett and McCreath [1] conservatively assume that the rock load acting on the shotcrete is in the
shape of a pyramid with side angles of 60° and a basal area defined by the spacing of the bolts. This
paper proposes alternative models for defining the weight of key blocks for Hawkesbury Sandstone
and Ashfield Shale (see Figure 7).
 Bedding and cross bedding partings

Joints
Joints

Figure 7 - Sandstone exposure showing bedding partings and joints

3.1.1.Hawkesbury Sandstone

Vertical joints / fractures in sandstone commonly exist in an almost rectangular array. Thus, the key
block/wedge formed around the tunnel crown in Hawkesbury Sandstone in this paper can be assumed
as a ‘flat block’ with height of 0.3 m, 0.3 m, 0.6 m and 2.0 m for sandstone classes I, II, III and IV
respectively. These heights were estimated based on potential bedding angles, spalling potential post
application of the shotcrete and the plunge of the tunnel. However, it is important to note that this is a
design simplification as the blocks are not necessarily a flat rectangular prism. Figure 8 shows an
Unwedge example showing a flat block to simulate the presence of a “fifth” side induced by spalling.

300 mm crown notch simulating

a spalling release plane

(a)

Figure 8 - An artificial notch added to the crown in Unwedge analysis in (a) cross section and (b) 3-
dimensional perspectives.

3.1.2.Ashfield Shale

In Ashfield Shale, loose blocks are assumed to be a pyramidal shape with side angles varying based
on different rock classes and a basal area defined by the spacing of the bolts (shown in Figure 9).
The side angles ( ) of the pyramidal shaped key blocks assumed in this paper to be 45°, 50° and 60°
for shale classes I, II and III respectively.
Figure 9 - Proposed applied load model for estimating shotcrete support requirements in Ashfield
Shale (modified from [1])
In shale, the weight of the block (W) can be estimated by calculating the height ( ):

(8)

The approach described above is considered as a critical loading case as no frictional resistance
along the sides of the block or the effect of horizontal stress are taken into account. As a result, all the
block sizes presented above are considered long term loading conditions where some initial block
movement and consequent loss of the in-situ stress effect, progressive damage within discontinuities
and loss of excess negative pore-pressures (i.e. suction thus, undrained behaviour) have occurred.
For short-term loading, the block sizes may be considered smaller taking these factors into account.

Additional surcharge loads such as residual water pressures, self-weight of shotcrete and mechanical
and electrical equipment acting between rock bolts shall also be added to the final value of W.

3.2. Compressive strength and bond (adhesion) strength

Compressive strength ( ) increases with shotcrete curing age such that a strength gain curve can be
developed based on the specified strength values. For example, recent tunnel projects in Sydney
have specified compressive strengths for tunnels in sandstone with 1 MPa, 8 MPa, 24 MPa and 40
MPa for early age (2 to 5 hours), 1 day, 7 days and 28 days respectively. This results in the best-
fitting curve shown in Figure 10. By analogy, considering the relationship between adhesion and
compressive strength, the bond (adhesion) strength could be assumed to follow a similar trend to the
compressive strength. It is important to note, however, that these values need to be confirmed by
appropriate laboratory or field testing. Adhesion strength of shotcrete is typically assessed by a
simple pull-out test (or tensile bond strength test).

(a) (b)

Figure 10 - (a) Compressive strength and (b) adhesive strength of shotcrete at various ages.

In good quality Hawkesbury Sandstone, the performance of shotcrete primarily relies on adhesion. A
minimum adhesive strength of 50 kPa could be expected at early age strength of 1.0 MPa based on
field trials presented by Bernard [10]. Adhesive strength increases with an increase in compressive
strength could be expected, assuming adhesive strength of 70 kPa for a minimum strength of 2.5 MPa
(shown in Figure 11). After 28 days, adhesion in sandstone is generally expected to exceed 1 MPa
although lower values are often adopted for a long-term adhesion.
Figure 11 - Bond (adhesive) strength as a function of compressive strength for both field (rock) and lab
(concrete) shotcrete trials (modified from [10])

3.3. Residual flexural strength

This paper proposes the following to estimate the residual flexural strength ( ) of shotcrete.
(9)
where is the plain shotcrete flexural strength and f eq is the residual flexural strength taking into
account the effect of the fibres.

Flexural strength of shotcrete ( ) can be estimated based on characteristic flexural tensile strength
of concrete presented in AS3600-2009, Clause 3.1.1.3 [9].
(10)
The minimum residual flexural strength ( ) of shotcrete depends on the shotcrete mix and fibre
contents. For the purpose of this paper it has been assumed to be defined at 28 days as measured by
CMOD4 in accordance with BS EN 14651 or L/150 per ASTM C1609.

It is important to note that Eq. (9) above limits the capacity to that of the plain concrete. In case of
strain hardening effects considered for the fibres, such an effect would have to be justified.
Furthermore, the combined use of the residual flexural strength and the elastic section modulus given
in Eq. (4) of this paper is not strictly theoretically correct. In case of a cracked shotcrete section, for
example resulting from shrinkage effects, the stress block and associated neutral axis would need to
be adjusted accordingly. However, for practical purposes, the authors consider reasonable to adopt
the residual flexural strength in Eq. (4) of this paper based on the small differences typically found
when compared to corrected theoretical stress blocks, the reduced section with a corrosion allowance
and the presence of some compressive stress in the shotcrete where it is installed close to the
excavation face. Such compressive forces would typically increase the bending capacity which is
ignored in the deterministic method described in this paper. In addition, crack widths greater than
0.3 mm would typically be repaired based on current industry practices targeting a design life of
100 years.

3.4. Diagonal tensile strength

This paper proposes the following formula to estimate the diagonal tensile strength of shotcrete ( )
which was adopted based on the characteristic flexural tensile strength for concrete presented in
AS5100.5-2004, clause 6.1.1 (c) [7].
(11)
3.5. Shear strength

This paper proposes the following formula to estimate the shear capacity ( ) of shotcrete. The shear
capacity for steel fibre reinforced shotcrete (SFRS) can be estimated by adding the shear strength of
the plain shotcrete and shear strength carried by the steel fibres.
(12)
The shear strength of plain shotcrete ( ) may be assumed as a one-way member based on
AS3600-2009, Clause 15.4.3(a) [9] as:
(13)
The shear strength due to the contribution of the steel fibres ( ) may be assumed based on DBV,
Clause 8.2.2.1 [11];
(14)
where is a flange geometry coefficient and is a coefficient for the height component
and (15)

3.6. Punching shear strength

This paper proposes the following formula to estimate the punching shear capacity ( ) of shotcrete.
Similar to the shear capacity discussed in Section 2.5, punching shear capacity can be estimated by
adding the shear strength of the plain shotcrete and the shear strength carried by the steel fibres.
(16)
Punching shear strength of plain shotcrete ( ) may be assumed as a two-way member based on
AS5100, Clause 15.4.2 [7]:
(17)
Punching shear strength due to contribution of steel fibres ( ) may be assumed as suggested on
DBV, Clause 8.2.2.1 [11]:
(18)
where is flange geometry coefficient and is coefficient considering component height
and (19)

4. LOAD AND STRENGTH REDUCTION FACTORS

For full compliance with limit state methods, the above equations would take the following inequality
forms:

Adhesion failure: (20)

Direct shear failure: (21)
Flexural failure: (22)
Punching shear failure: (23)

where is a load factor which and is a strength reduction factor. In accordance with AS 5100 [7]
these would take the following values = 0.6 and = 1.5 for an Ultimate Limit State conditions which
is the focus of the method in discussion.

It is important to note that the AS 5100 [7] factors would result in an equivalent safety factor of
approximately 2.5 (i.e. 1.5/0.6). Other international standards propose different safety factors. For
example, the 1988 version of DIN 1045 [12] distinguishes safety factors to reflect whether a failure of
the cross section occurs with advanced warnings (SF = 1.75) or without (SF = 2.1) as indicated by the
state of strain and the development of cracks in the concrete.
5. CONCLUSIONS

The Barrett and McCreath’s approach is fundamentally sound and has been used in some of the
recent tunnelling projects in Sydney, Australia. This paper has revisited the method originally
proposed by Barrett and McCreath, provides corrections to some of their original equations and
describes how they might be adjusted for harmonisation (if necessary) for LRFD code compliance.

6. REFERENCES

1. Barrett, S. V. L. and McCreath, D. R. (1995), “Shotcrete Support design in Blocky Ground: Towards
A Deterministic Approach”, Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, Volume 10, Number
1, pp. 79-89(11).
2. Holmgren, J. (1987), “Bolt-anchored steel reinforced shotcrete linings”, Tunnelling and
Underground Space Technology 2(3), pp. 319-333.
3. Windsor, C.R. and Thompson, A.G. (1999), "The design of shotcrete linings for excavations
created by drill and blast methods", In: Proceeding of international symposium on ground support,
(1999: Kalgoorlie, W.A.); pp. 231-241.
4. Barton, N. & Grimstad, E. (1993), “Updating the Q-system for NMT”, in Proceedings of International
Symposium on Sprayed Concrete, Fragernes, Norway, pp. 21.
5. Hung, C. J., Monsees, J., Munfah, N., Wisniewski, J. (2009), “Technical Manual for Design and
Construction of Road Tunnel-Civil Element”, FHWA-NHI-10-034, National Highway Institute, U.S.
Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C. 20590.
6. Oliveira D., Asche H. and Day, R. (2017), Bridge Codes – Are they Acceptable for Tunnel Design?
Proceedings of the Australasian Tunnelling Conference 2017, Sydney, Australia.
7. Standards Australia (2004). Australian Standard AS AS 5100 – 2004 Bridge Design.
8. L.K.T Uotinen, (2011) “Design of shotcrete rock reinforcement in hard rock according to Eurocode”.
In Seminar on Geoengineering, Aalto University, Finland.
9. Standards Australia (2009). Australian Standard AS 3600 – 2009 Concrete Structures.
10. Bernard, E.S (2008). Early-age load resistance of fibre reinforced shotcrete linings. Tunnelling and
Underground Space Technology 23 (2008) 451–460.
11. Deutscher Beton- und Bautechnik-Verein E.V. (DBV) 2001, “DBV-Guide to Good Practice, Steel
Fibre Concrete (DBV-Merkblatt Stahlfaserbeton)”, DBV, Berlin, Germany.
12. Din 1045, 1988, “Concrete Design and Construction”, Deutsches Institut für Normungen E.V.,
Beuth Verlag Gmbh., Berlin,(FRG).