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

net/publication/340297317

Analytical procedure to decide forepoling specifications for underground

structures

Conference Paper · November 2019

CITATIONS READS

0 49

2 authors:

Akx Malik George Moses

Larsen and Toubro Larsen and Toubro
13 PUBLICATIONS   19 CITATIONS    2 PUBLICATIONS   0 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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

Underground Cavern Design View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Akx Malik on 17 July 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Vietrock2019 an ISRM specialized conference Vietrock2019
22-24 November 2019, Hanoi, Vietnam

Analytical procedure to decide forepoling specifications for underground

structures
George Moses Ka* Akx Malika
a
Larsen & Toubro Ltd., Chennai, India
* georgemosesk89@gmail.com (corresponding author’s E-mail)

Abstract

A major cave-in happened in Buon Kuop hydropower project in Vietnam when one of the tunnels
encountered a weak zone leading to creation of sink hole at the ground. The design and construction of
underground structures in such weak geological conditions, require pre excavation support measures to
ensure stability. During the numerical analysis for support system design of an underground tunnel in
India, a similar chimney formation was observed and after a comprehensive study of the problem,
forepoles were decided as the pre excavation support measure to facilitate the excavation and restrict
the movement of face and crown above the face. Due to limitations and complexities involved in
modelling forepoles using currently available finite element and discrete element software’s, analytical
models were used to provide a suitable design methodology for forepoles. However, literature review
on forepoles revealed very scarce data which gives clear guidelines and specifications for forepole
design using an analytical approach. This paper discusses an analytical procedure adopted for design of
forepoles which has been implemented in an underground tunnel. The analytical design procedure is
described along with the case study where a double layer forepole system is designed. It is understood
that during various stages of excavation, rock load experienced by the forepoles changes. Therefore,
the interaction of forepoles with the ground and other support systems is also discussed in this paper.
Pre-support measures should be decided at the right time to prevent any criticality during construction
that leads to structure instability. This paper can be helpful to tunnel engineers in deciding forepole
design specifications and aims to contribute to a better understanding of pre-support functioning in
underground structures.

Keywords: Forepoles, underground structures, cavern, analytical model, pre support

1.0 Introduction

The excavation of a tunnel causes the deformation of ground and formation of plastic zone from some
distance ahead of the tunnel face which has been illustrated by Hoek (2001), Vlachopoulos and
Diederichs (2009) as shown in Figure 1. When the excavation is through poor geological conditions,
minimizing the deformations ahead of the face is important in terms of tunnel safety as well as limiting
the surface settlements. Usually the tunnel supports such as shotcrete or rock bolts are installed behind
the tunnel face and does not help in reducing the ground displacements ahead of the face, which is
critical. In such cases, pre-excavation support measures are generally adopted. As described by Oke et
Vietrock2019 an ISRM specialized conference Vietrock2019
22-24 November 2019, Hanoi, Vietnam

al., (2014a), there exist various nomenclature for the pre support measure such as forepole, spiles,
umbrella arch, pipe roof, canopy arch, etc. therefore, the selection chart as recommended by Oke et al.,
(2014a) is used in this paper, according to which the suitable pre support determined is the forepole
grouted umbrella arch (FpGUA).

Figure 1: Development of plastic zone and convergence as tunnel advances (Hoek, 2001)

The principle of FpGUA is that it forms an arch like structure ahead of the excavation and transfers the
load longitudinally between the unexcavated firm ground ahead of the face and support system installed
behind the excavation face. The design parameters of FpGUA are as follows:
1. Size of forepole [Outer diameter (ФOD) and Internal diameter (ФID)
2. Spacing of forepole (sfp)
3. Length of forepole (lfp)
4. Overlap (lapfp)

Hoek (2001) suggested a crude approach to design the pre support numerically, however it could not
accurately simulate its effect and therefore was not able to arrive at the design parameters. Oke et al.,
(2014b) also stated that a 2D numerical model can not capture the global response of the pre support
system. The authors also performed 3D numerical analysis using 3DEC software, in which forepole
were assumed as beam elements connected by various nodal points. The difficulty occurs in defining
the end supports to the beam elements, which in reality keeps on changing as excavation proceeds and
supports are installed. The other approach attempted in 3-DEC was to assume forepole as cables
elements, however it does not represent the forepole umbrella arch and the loading mechanism on it.
Finally, due to the complexities in numerical modelling an analytical method was adopted for arriving
at the design parameters of FpGUA and the same was implemented in a tunnel project. Due to the
limitation in the installation of a larger diameter pipe for this tunnel project, a double layer forepole
system is designed with 51mm diameter pipe. This paper discusses the analytical approach used which
can be used by tunnel engineers in deciding forepole specifications and aims to contribute to a better
understanding of pre support in tunnels and caverns.
Vietrock2019 an ISRM specialized conference Vietrock2019
22-24 November 2019, Hanoi, Vietnam

2.0 Support Mechanism

During the excavation of a tunnel through poor geological conditions there are chances of bore hole
collapse or chimney type of failure. This happens due to the collapse of the excavation face in the form
of a wedge as shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2: Sliding Mechanism leading to collapse (Horn, 1961)

The wedge slides resulting in failure when the shear force acting on the slip surfaces ADE, BCF and
ABFE is more than the shear capacity. The major load contributing to the shear force upon the wedge
is due to the weight of overburden in the form of rectangular prism as shown in Figure 2. This load
acting upon the wedge can be minimized by the application of FpGUA which transfers this load
longitudinally on to the firm ground ahead of the excavation face and supports installed behind the face
as shown in Figure 3.

Figure 3: Load transfer mechanism of forepoles

Vietrock2019 an ISRM specialized conference Vietrock2019
22-24 November 2019, Hanoi, Vietnam

Li (2017) suggests that the forepoles must have at least two support positions, one being the face rock
and the other being the rockbolts and arches at the near end. The FpGUA member installed should be
sufficient to carry this load and to safely transfer it longitudinally to the firm ground ahead and support
system behind the excavation i.e. shotcrete, steel rib or lattice girder over which the forepole is resting.

3.0 Overburden Load

The load acting on the FpGUA as shown in Figure 3 is determined on the basis of arching theory
proposed by Terzaghi (1943). The use of Terzaghi load theory to estimate the load carried by the
umbrella arch is proposed by other researchers, John and Mattle (2002). According to this theory, when
the ground above the excavation yields and moves towards the excavation, the stable ground adjacent
will try to resist the movement of the yielded rockmass through shearing resistance. Following this
theory, the vertical stress on the roof of an excavation can be expressed as given in Eq. 1 and Eq. 2:

𝐵1(𝛾−𝑐⁄𝐵1) 𝐷1⁄ 𝐷1
𝜎𝑣 = 𝐾 tan Ф
(1 − 𝑒 −𝐾 tan(Ф) 𝐵1 ) + 𝛾𝐷2𝑒 −𝐾 tan(Ф) ⁄𝐵1 (Eq.1)

𝐵1 = 𝐵 + 𝐻 tan(45 − Ф⁄2) (Eq.2)

Where, γ is the unit weight of the ground, c is the cohesion, Ф is the friction angle, K is the in-situ stress
ration, H is the total overburden, B is the width of excavation, D1 is the height of arching zone above
ground and D2 is the height above non arching zone. The height of arching zone can be determined by
the empirical equations suggested by Terzaghi which is based on the ground type surrounding the
excavation.

For the tunnel considered in this paper as a case study, the geological and geotechnical parameters are
as described in Table 1. The strata around the tunnel alignment consists of beds of sandstones derived
from coarser grained fragments/sediments occurring in a layered sequence with shales which are formed
of finer grained sediments. However, at the portal locations the geology is completely different which
is characterized by soil stratum with low shear strength and stiffness.

Table 1: Geotechnical Design Parameters

Unit Friction
Ground Cohesion Poisson’s Stress Overburden
Weight E [MPa] Angle
Type [MPa] Ratio Ratio [m]
[kN/m3] [Degree]

Soil
18 40-60 20-25 0.1-0.2 0.3 0.75 30
Strata
Vietrock2019 an ISRM specialized conference Vietrock2019
22-24 November 2019, Hanoi, Vietnam

The equivalent radius of the top heading excavation is 6.5m and excavation height of top heading is 7m.
Applying the geometical details of the excavation and geotechnical design parameters of the ground,
the vertical stress on the roof is calculated as 232 kPa.

4.0 Design of FpGUA

The forepole installed should be sufficient enough to take up the verital stress acting over it. For the
analytical model, the forepole is considered as a pipe with one end fixed and supported by the firm
ground ahead of excavation while the other end as hinged by tunnel supports in the form of lattice grider
or steel ribs as shown in Figure 4.

Figure 4: Analytical Model (Saito, 1982)

The yield moment of a pipe section can be calculated according to the general formula as given in Eq.3:

𝑓 𝐼
𝑚= (Eq.3)
𝑦

Where, f is the yield strength of steel, I is the moment of inertia of pipe and y is the section modulus.
For the tunnel being considered, a pipe of outer diameter (ФOD) 51mm and inner diameter (ФID) 26mm
is used as the forepole member. The suitability of this will be checked along with the determination of
other design parameters. The yield moment calculated for this pipe sections comes out to be 6.75 kN-
m considering a material factor of safety for steel as 1.15.

According to the assumption that the forepole pipe will support the load in the longitudinal direction
and the ends are fixed and hinged on either sides, the moment acting on the pipe can be determined by
Eq. 4:

𝑤𝑙 2
𝑚= (Eq. 4)
8

Where, w is the load on the pipe (FpGUA) and can be rewritten as a product of vertical stress (σv) and
spacing (s) and l is the length of unsuported span.
Vietrock2019 an ISRM specialized conference Vietrock2019
22-24 November 2019, Hanoi, Vietnam

Knowing the yield moment of the pipe section decided and the vertical stress acting, the spacing of the
forepoles can be determined by rewriting Eq. 4 as:

8 𝑚 (Eq. 5)
𝑠=
𝜎𝑣 𝑙 2

In the Eq. 5, knowing moment (m) and vertical stress (σv) which were already calculated and taking
unsupported span (l) as 1m, the spacing of the forepoles is evaluated as 230 mm.

Oke et al., (2014a) based on an extensive literature review have shown that the spacing of FpGUA
implemented is in the range of 300mm to 600mm. The spacing evaluated was thus found to be very less
and in order to increase the spacing either the pipe section has to be revisited considering a larger
diameter pipe or the number of active layers of forepoles should be increased. For this project, the
number of forepole layers were increased instead of going for a larger pipe diameter. Installation of a
larger diameter pipe requires larger holes to be drilled which can be done by more sophisticated drill
jombos.

By using 2 layers of forepoles, the center to center spacing increased to twice (460 mm) as in single
layer. If the overlap length of forepoles is equal to or more than the length of the forepole, it can be
considered as a double layer forepole system having 2 active layer of forepole at every section.

The recommended length of the forepole was taken as 12m with 6m overlap making it a double layer
system, which was found to be sufficient to reach the firm ground penetrating through the disturbed
ground ahead of the excavation face. The results of the numerical analyses for support system design
and forepole design are beyond the scope of this paper. The deformation data behind the tunnel face
after installation of forepoles as obtained from the project site is not presented herein.

5.0 Conclusion

The paper describes an analytical approach which was used to determine the key parameters for the
design of forepole system for a tunnel project. The requirement of forepole system arrived when a
chimney formation was observed in the numerical analyses for support system design of the tunnel. The
Terzaghi’s arching theory was used to arrive at the roof stress and the design parameters such as spacing
and size of forepoles was decided considering the pipe being fixed at one end and hinged at other. The
design of a double layer forepole system using this methodology was discussed using a case study. The
effect of grout inside the pipe is not considered in the design. Aanalytical procedure for forepole design
was found to be less complex as compared to numerical analyses performed using 3-DEC and has been
successful in stabilization of the ground. The methodology given in this paper can be useful to tunnel
engineers who aim to design the tunnel support systems in weak geological conditions.
 Vietrock2019 an ISRM specialized conference Vietrock2019
22-24 November 2019, Hanoi, Vietnam

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge the design and execution team of the project at L&T Headquarters, Chennai
whose contribution resulted in successful development of design and implementation of the same at site.

References
1. Hoek, Evert. "Big tunnels in bad rock." Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering 127.9 (2001): 726-740.
2. Horn, M. 1961. Alagutak homlokbiztositasara hat6 vizszintes foldnyomasvizsgalat néhany
eredménye. Az orszégos mélyé~ pitéipari konferencia eloadasai, Kdzlekedési Dokumentacios
Vallalat, Budapest (in Hungarian). See also "Horizontaler Erddruck auf senkrechte
Abschlussflachen von Tum1eln", In: Landeskonferenz der ungarischen Tiejbauindustrie,
Budapest (German transalation, STUVA, Dtisseldorf).
3. John, M. & B. Mattle 2002. Design of Tube Umbrellas. Tunel, 11. Ročník, č. 3/2002. Magazine
of the Czech Tunnelling Committee and Slovak Tunnelling Association.
4. Li, Charlie C. "Principles of rockbolting design." Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical
Engineering 9, no. 3 (2017): 396-414.
5. Oke, Jeffrey, Nicholas Vlachopoulos, and Vassilis Marinos. "Umbrella arch nomenclature and
selection methodology for temporary support systems for the design and construction of
tunnels." Geotechnical and geological engineering 32.1 (2014a): 97-130.
6. Oke, J., N. Vlachopoulos, and M. S. Diederichs. "Numerical analyses in the design of umbrella
arch systems." Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 6.6 (2014b): 546-564.
7. Saito T. “Pipe roof method in tunnelling” Riko-Tosho, Tokyo, 1982.
8. Terzaghi K. “Theoritical soil mechanics” John Wiley and sons, Inc., New York, 1943
9. Vlachopoulos, N., and M. S. Diederichs. "Improved longitudinal displacement profiles for
convergence confinement analysis of deep tunnels." Rock mechanics and rock engineering 42.2
(2009): 131-146.

View publication stats