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

net/publication/245294224

Deformation and Failure of the Tymfristos Tunnel, Greece

Article  in  Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering · October 2004

DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2004)130:10(1004)

CITATIONS READS
42 1,900

3 authors, including:

V. Kontogianni Stathis Stiros

IGME - Greek Institute of Geology and Mineral Exploration University of Patras
43 PUBLICATIONS   596 CITATIONS    228 PUBLICATIONS   5,609 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by V. Kontogianni on 30 June 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Deformation and Failure of the Tymfristos Tunnel, Greece
V. Kontogianni1; A. Tzortzis2; and S. Stiros3

Abstract: The Tymfristos tunnel, a 1,365 m long road tunnel with an 11 m section diameter, was excavated through the highly tectonized,
low strength Flysch formation of central Greece. About 1 year after the completion of the excavation in 1995, convergence of up to 20%
followed by failure of the support system was recorded. A 501 m long segment, in which the failure occurred, was reexcavated based on
a more detailed study of the ground conditions; however, this second phase was also followed by an up to 6% convergence. The detailed
geodetic study of the three-dimensional kinematics of the support shell in relation time, ring closure delays, and support measures reveals
an unusual time-history of convergence occasionally continuing even after the ring closure and a nonuniform distortion of the lining.
Furthermore, uncontrolled deformation of certain “weak” sections propagated bidirectionally to adjacent, previously stabilized sections
producing a “chain effect,” responsible for destabilization and resumed convergence of long (⬃90 m) segments.
DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2004)130:10(1004)
CE Database subject headings: Convergence; Deformation analysis; Tunnels; Failures; Greece.

Introduction
Two types of failures can be recognized during tunnel excavation:
(1) local instability effects (sudden collapse, tunnel face slope
failure) and (2) extreme convergence (squeezing) reducing the
initial section of the tunnel and occasionally leading to the sup-
port shell failure. This last deformation mode occurs beyond the
elastic range, is usually time-dependent, and its rate gradually
decreases until it reaches an equilibrium level or failure (Singh
and Goel 1999; Fig. 1). In fact, such a process is fundamental in
the so-called “NATM” (new Austrian tunneling method): a lim-
ited reduction of the tunnel diameter leads to relief of stresses in
the surrounding rock mass and to a less stiff and less expensive
support system (Kovari 1993). Sakurai (1983) and Chern et al.
(1998) suggested that strain (tunnel convergence to tunnel diam-
eter ratio) values of approximately 1 to 2% represent a boundary
(critical strain) between successfully designed tunnels and tunnels
requiring additional support measures and/or changes in the ex-
cavation process. If strain exceeds this boundary, significant in-
stability problems may occur, and if it exceeds the minimum
specified clearances, several sections have to be remined (Fig. 1),
which is a time-consuming and high-cost process.
An analysis of the deformation recorded during the excavation
of a number of tunnels in good quality rocks in Greece, Turkey,
and other countries revealed that predicted and observed defor-
mations were practically the same (Panet and Guenot 1982; Dal-
giç 2002a; Kontogianni and Stiros 2002). This indicates that the
geotechnical techniques adopted, approximate elastoplastic analy-
sis and FEM (Hoek 1999; Özsan and Karpuz 2001) successfully
describe the actual conditions of good quality rock mass during
tunneling.
There are, however, a number of tunnels in which observed
deformation was several times higher than the predicted one and
exceeded the critical 2% strain boundary (Table 1). As these tun-
nels were excavated in weak rocks and there was no evidence of
great delays to the lining or stoppages to the face advance, two
likely reasons for such failures can be proposed; either the false
application of the geotechnical models and excavation techniques,
or the inability of these models or techniques to assess the weak
rock mass conditions. Since the number of tunnels excavated in
unfavorable rock conditions (“bad rocks;” Hoek 2001) has dra-
matically increased in the last years, it is necessary to study such
cases and shed some light on the conditions which led to such
failures.

1
PhD Candidate, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Patras Univ., Patras
26500, Greece. E-mail: vkont@civil.upatras.gr
2
Civil Engineer, Dept of Civil Engineering, Patras Univ., Patras
26500, Greece.
3
Associate Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Patras Univ., Patras
26500, Greece. E-mail: stiros@upatras.gr
Note. Discussion open until March 1, 2005. Separate discussions must
be submitted for individual papers. To extend the closing date by one
month, a written request must be filed with the ASCE Managing Editor.
The manuscript for this paper was submitted for review and possible
publication on February 20, 2002; approved on December 30, 2003. This
Fig. 1. Idealized curves indicating various cases of time-dependent
paper is part of the Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
deformation of tunnels during their excavation. Modified from Muir
Engineering, Vol. 130, No. 10, October 1, 2004. ©ASCE, ISSN 1090-
0241/2004/10-1004–1013/$18.00. Wood (1993).

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / OCTOBER 2004 / 1004

Table 1. Tunnels Excavated through “Bad” Rock Masses That Faced Severe Deformations During Construction
Maximum Convergence
Diameter Length convergence versus diameter
Tunnel (m) (m) Geology (m) (%)a Source
Metsovo (Greece) 5.75 1 Flysch formation of 1 ⬃17.5 Unpulblished
very low quality data
Nathpa Jhakri hydroelectric 10 27,000 gneisses, schists, ⬎1 ⬎10 1
project (India) quartzites, igneous
fault zone
Mucha highway (Taiwan) 16 graphitic phyllite 1.2 7.5 1
Yacambu-Quibor (Venezuela) 5.5 25,000 weathered zones of Locally total closure 100 (locally) 1
sandstones, siltstones
Bolu (Turkey) 16 3,200 mudstone and 1.2 7.5 2
Tymfristos (Greece) 11 1,365 argillaceous schist 2 ⬃18 3
Kallidromo (Greece) 10 9,025 zones of limestone and ⬃1a ⬃10 4
clay with sand and silt
Maneri-Uttarkashi power 4,75 8,560 quartzitic and metabasic 0.43 9 5
tunnel (India) rocks
Note: Source: 1: Hoek (2001); 2: Dalgic and Simsek (2002); Brox and Hagedorn (1999), 3: this study; 4: ERGOSE S.A., unpublished data (2002); and
5: Goel et al. (1995).
a
Cumulative displacement of repeated excavations of the tunnel floor (invert).

In this paper, we analyze the deformation of the Tymfristos
tunnel, Greece, one of the first tunnels excavated in Flysch for-
mation. Extreme deformation and failure of the support shell
(convergence up to 20%) made necessary the reexcavation of a
501 m long tunnel segment, while during the reexcavation an
additional up to 6% convergence was observed. Due to this ex-
treme deformation this project was much delayed and its cost was
approximately 10 times higher than initially estimated (Technical
Chamber of Greece, Central Greece Section 2000). Our analysis
is based on detailed geodetic survey records describing not simply
length changes as is the case with most tunnels excavated in the
past, but absolute three-dimensional (3D) displacements relative
to fixed stations outside the tunnel, and permits to propose an
explanation for the tunnel failure.
Tymfristos Tunnel
Geological and Geotechnical Conditions
The Tymfristos tunnel was excavated through a Flysch complex,
widespread in the Pindos Mt. Range, representing the alpine skel-
eton of Greece. Flysch is a high laterally heterogeneous formation
and in the broader study area consists of claystone and slicken-
sided argillaceous schist, intensely folded and tectonized. Details
of the rock structure along the tunnel path are shown in Fig. 3 and
Table 3. No swelling rocks, like those found in tunnels in Flysch
further north in the Metsovo area (Karapantelakis et al. 2001; for
location see Fig. 2), were, however, met in Tymfristos.
Dripping underground water was systematically observed, but
no substantial change to the water flow along the tunnel axis or
with time was reported. Laboratory testing on samples collected
from the site suggests that the uniaxial compressive strength of
the intact rock 共␴ci兲 practically ranges between the values 5 and
50 MPa (unpublished data).

The Tymfristos tunnel is a 1,365 m long road tunnel with an 11 m

section diameter opened through the Tymfristos Mt., close to the
town of Karpenisi (central Greece) and the ancient oracle of Del-
phi, at a maximum overburden height of 153 m (Fig. 2). The
mining of the tunnel started in 1992 and was completed in 1998
in two phases (Table 2).
First Phase of Excavation
The excavation of the Tymfristos tunnel started in 1992 and was
completed in 1995. Its design [from chainage (Ch.) 0⫹0 m to Ch.
1⫹365 m] was empirical and involved:

Fig. 2. Longitudinal section of the Tymfristos tunnel. Letters A–F indicate segments discussed in the text. Numbers indicate overburden height.
Shaded is the reexcavated part. Inset: Location map, T stands for Tymfristos, K for Kallidromo, and M for Metsovo.

1005 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / OCTOBER 2004

Table 2. Characteristics of the Two Successive Construction Phases of the Tymfristos Tunnel
Phase of Tunnel length Excavation Excavation Maximum
construction Period to be excavated method limitations Support system convergence
First 1992–1995 1,365 m In two or three None 0.40 m shotcrete, ⬎20%
(0⫹0 to 1⫹365) steps (top-heading, 2 T188 wire mesh,
locally bench, IBN 180 steel ribs,
invert) 20 rock bolts

Second 1997–1998 501 m Widening of Specified advance 0.40 m shotcrete, Horizontal⫽2.5%

(0⫹810 to 1⫹311) the converged rate⫽1 m, 2 T131 wire mesh, Vertical⫽6%
sections specified ring lattice girders
closure⫽2 m, 70/30/D30,
but adopted 14 rock bolts
ring closure
at ⬎7 days

1. Sampling of the rock mass of the area through drilled bore- Deformation During the First Phase of Excavation
holes along the tunnel axis at a spacing of a few hundreds of
In 1996, approximately 1 year after the initial excavation (1992–
meters.
1995), in the framework of the new geotechnical study the whole
2. Determination of certain rockmass parameters (uniaxial com-
tunnel was surveyed using geodetic techniques. It was divided
pression strength, cohesion, friction angle, modulus of elas-
into sections with a spacing of ⬃20 m along the tunnel axis, and
ticity, and Poisson ratio) on the basis of laboratory tests of
9–14 points in each section, some of them targets for the conver-
selected samples.
gence control during the initial excavation of the tunnel, were
3. Determination of the suitable support system on the basis of
measured. Both the initial survey (during the first phase of the
empirical selection of the support measures, following the
excavation) and postdeformation survey were based on stable ref-
current practice at the time. Such system consisted of 40 cm
erence stations outside the tunnel and survey stations along the
thick shotcrete shell reinforced with two layers of wire mesh
tunnel axis, fixed on the invert. Consequently, absolute displace-
(T188), twin IPN 180 steel ribs placed at 0.80 m spacing,
ments of survey stations along the tunnel axis and of deformed
invert lining to counteract the ring closure effect, and 20 rock
sections of the tunnel were estimated with an accuracy of a few
bolts 6–9 m long in order to improve the rock mass strength.
centimeters (Kontogianni and Stiros 2001).
4. The excavated cross section of 120 m2 was subdivided into
Survey data from two different segments were available for
top-heading, bench, and invert parts [Fig. 4(a)] following the
our study: from segment D (part of the reexcavated tunnel length)
NATM (Kovari 1993) and using mechanical excavation from
and from segment B (see Fig. 2 for locations). Convergence mea-
both portals. No limitations had been set concerning the ad-
sured ⬃1 year after the initial excavation in segment B (overbur-
vance rate or the ring closure distance. The tunneling rate
den 50–90 m) was up to 9% (at Ch. 0⫹577 m) while in segment
and sequence was determined by the lowest-cost approach,
D reached 20% (at Ch. 0⫹920 m; overburden 128–143 m). Se-
excavation through the week and support installation during
lected deformed sections for these two segments, compiled on the
the weekends.
basis of the survey data, are shown in Fig. 6.
5. Monitoring was based on geodetic data as well as geotech-
According to Tsatsanifos et al. (1999) the excavation of the
nical instruments (extensometers, etc.). The details and re-
top-heading section during the first phase of construction was not
sults of this monitoring are not known.
followed by any significant section closure. The main portion of
The excavation proved, at least for a 501 m long section (Ch.
the recorded deformation and the cracking of the support shell,
0⫹810 m to Ch. 1⫹311 m unsuccessful, leading to high defor-
accompanied by characteristic sounds, occurred shortly after the
mation of the tunnel sections, failure of the support shell (Fig. 5),
bench and invert excavation (P. Mantziaras, personal communica-
breaching of the contract, and partial reexcavation of the tunnel
tion, 2001). In some cases, the tunnel floor heaved up to 1.5 m
following a new geotechnical study under a new contract.
and the extremely stiff invert concrete lining failed to withstand

Fig. 3. Typical cross section of the Flysch along the face of the
Tymfristos tunnel (Ch. 0⫹536 m). Rockmass consists of mudstone Fig. 4. Tunnel section areas during the first phase of excavation and
with dense intercalations of argillaceous schist. Triangle and solid the reexcavation. Arrows indicate positions of cracked shotcrete shell
circle indicate dripping and low pressure water flow, respectively. in Fig. 5. Reflectors position also indicated (solid dots).

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / OCTOBER 2004 / 1006

Table 3. Summary of Selected Geological and Geotechnical Characteristics of Selected Sections. Total Convergence during the First Phase of Excavation
is also Shown
Compression
Convergence strength Overburden
Chainage Geological structure (cm) (MPa) (m)
0⫹464 Gray mudstone (S) 32.8 5-25 37
0⫹508 Gray mudstone (M) and sandstone 22.5 25-50 51
0⫹533 Mudstone with intercalations of argillaceous schist (S) 40.4 25 60
0⫹544 Gray argillaceous schist (S,M) 29.5 5-25 68
0⫹550 Gray mudstone (S) 46.2 25 72
0⫹577 Gray mudstone (S) 91.0 25-50 83
0⫹588 Mudstone and argillaceous schist (S,M) 74.4 25-50 84
0⫹599 Gray mudstone with intercalations of argillaceous schist 62.3 5-25 89
(S,M)
0⫹620 Gray argillaceous schist (M) 51.0 5-25 93
0⫹629 Gray mudstone with intercalations of argillaceous schist 64.2 25 94
(S,M)
0⫹835 Gray mudstone (S,M) and sandstone (M) 180.0 50 140
0⫹846 Argillaceous schist and mudstone (folded, fractured) 162.5 3-10 147
0⫹860 Mudstone with intercalations of argil. schist (folded, 117.5 25 147
fractured)
0⫹875 Mudstone and argillaceous schist (M, H, fractured) 107.5 5-25 147
0⫹935 Mudstone and argillaceous schist (M, H) 152.5 1-25 142
0⫹953 Mudstone and argillaceous schist (M, H) 87.5 25-50 139
0⫹968 Mudstone and argillaceous schist (M) 67.5 5-25 137
1⫹006 Mudstone and argillaceous schist (M) 50.0 11 134
1⫹039 Mudstone and argillaceous schist (M) and sandstone (S) 72.5 19 133
1⫹063 Argillaceous schist and mudstone (M,H) 137.5 5 131
Note: S: slightly weathered; M: moderately weathered; H: highly weathered; and reexcavated segment⫽chainage 0⫹810 to 1⫹311.

the strain and cracked (Fig. 5). Detailed records, however, of the
convergence history versus the tunnel face advance or versus time
are not available.
Second Phase of Excavation
During the second construction phase (1997 to 1998) under a new
contract, the section was widened to 130 m2, and the top-heading
height was increased to 6.5 m high (instead of 6.0 m) in order to
provide the necessary net height even in the case of high defor-
mation [Fig. 4(b)]. Bench and invert parts were also remined to
the design dimensions. The excavation operation, following the
NATM, started from both sides of the remined tunnel segment.
The failed lining was removed and a new support system, includ-
ing the use of lattice girders instead of ribs, was installed; the rest
of the support system remained almost the same as that of the first
phase (Table 2). In addition, the ring closure distance was set to 2
m and the face advance to 1 m. However, these last specifications
were not strictly followed because of the delay produced to the
construction schedule.
Deformation during the Second Phase of Excavation
Geodetic monitoring of tunnel deformation was more systematic
during the second phase of excavation. Deformation monitoring
sections were established at narrow (⬃15 m) spacing and three
reflectors were established in each section; two at the sides and

Fig. 5. Tymfristos tunnel, 1 year after the first excavation. (a) Maximum convergence reached 20% and the support system was destroyed; (b)
longitudinal cracks at the top-heading footings. Position of shotcrete cracking along the tunnel axis are indicated by arrows in Fig. 4. After
Kavvadas (1999).

1007 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / OCTOBER 2004

Fig. 6. Representative cross sections from Segments B (top) and D
(bottom, reexcavated part) 1 year after the completion of the first
phase of excavation. Convergence is indicated by black.
one at the crown of the primary support of the tunnel [see Fig.
7(a)]. Measurements were made with a total station instrument
relative to fixed stations outside the tunnel, daily for approxi-
1
mately 1 2 months, until deformation stopped (i.e., until the tunnel
sections were stabilized). During this period, horizontal and ver-
tical convergence of up to 2.5 and 6%, respectively, was observed
(Tsatsanifos et al. 1999). The available survey data set discussed
below permits one to model the 3D kinematics of the primary
support of the tunnel.
In order to understand the rock mass behavior in relation to the
excavation technique and the support measures used, the available
geodetic monitoring data collected during the second excavation
phase were analyzed as far as: (1) the distribution of deformation
in the various tunnel sections, (2) the variation of maximum con-
vergence along the tunnel axis, (3) the time history of deforma-
tion, and (4) the relationship between convergence and ring clo-
sure are concerned.
Distribution of Deformation in Tunnel Sections
As can be deduced from Figs. 7(a and b), a main characteristic of
the observed deformation is that it does not correspond to a uni-
form radial section closure, but the amplitude of radial displace-
ment is variable along the tunnel periphery. The vertical displace-
ment records indicate that the whole top-heading section moved
Fig. 8. Vertical convergence and horizontal convergence of the reexcavated part of the Tymfristos tunnel from position Ch. 0⫹850 m to position
Ch. 1⫹270 m
JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / OCTOBER 2004 / 1008
Fig. 7. Recorded displacements and distortion of the support shell for
representative sections of the Tymfristos tunnel (Section S13, a and
b) and the Kallidromo tunnel (c and d). Arrows in (a) and (c) indicate
horizontal and vertical components of displacement of geodetic con-
trol points; arrows in (b) and (d) indicate qualitatively the sense of
deformation of the support shell.
downwards. However, in some sections the vertical movement of
the control point at the crown is smaller than the vertical move-
ment of the sidewalls [i.e., vertical component of displacement
for Point 3 was larger than for Point 2 in Fig. 7(a)]. Thus the main
part of the deformation is localized to the invert and the bench
(vertical and horizontal convergence) while in the top-heading a
horizontal contraction is combined with a vertical movement that
seems to represent a generalized rotational distortion of the sup-
port shell [Fig. 7(b)].
Variation of Maximum Convergence along the Tunnel
Axis
The horizontal and vertical maximum section convergence along
the tunnel axis is shown in Fig. 8. This figure shows that for the
major part of the reexcavated segment convergence did not ex-
ceed the value of 2% for the vertical and 1% for the horizontal
direction. However, between Ch. 1⫹151 m and Ch. 1⫹236 m,
vertical convergence had its maximum value (6%).

Time History of Deformation

Fig. 8 reveals that the amplitude of the vertical deformation is
higher than the horizontal one, and hence is a more sensitive
indicator of the history of deformation versus time. For this rea-
son we focus on the vertical convergence and especially on the
highly deformed sections (from Ch. 1⫹151 m to Ch. 1⫹236 m).
Points S9 (Ch. 1⫹215 m) and S13 (Ch. 1⫹172 m), which
correspond to the peak deformation (6%), during a period of ⬃30
days showed a nearly linear tendency for increasing deformation
before they stabilized (Fig. 9). On the contrary, their adjacent
Points S15, S14, S12, S10, S8, and S7 showed an alternation of
periods of increasing deformation, stabilization, and resumed de-
formation (Fig. 9). This last pattern of resumed deformation is
different from that of most successfully excavated tunnels (cf.
Fig. 1; Guenot et al. 1985; Kontogianni and Stiros 2002).

Convergence in Relation to Ring Closure Delays

The time-closure histories for both the vertical and horizontal
convergence of two representative sections of the reexcavated
tunnel segment in relation to the ring closure delay (i.e., installa-
tion of the full support system around the tunnel periphery) are
shown in Fig. 10. What is evident from this figure is that for low
convergence rates (2 to 3 mm/days), a delayed (after ⬎20 days)
closure was not followed by additional deformation. On the con-
trary, a relatively early (in ⬍6 days) closure in high convergence Fig. 9. Time history of convergence during the second phase of
rates (10–12 mm/days) was indeed followed by a rapidly accu- excavation for representative sections between Ch. 1⫹272 m (S4)
mulating deformation which reached the value of 6% in the ver- and Ch. 1⫹129 m (S17). Diagrams to the left and right correspond to
tical and 1.5% in the horizontal direction. the two “bulges” assigned to an additional, induced deformation of
Fig. 8. Shading marks temporary or final stabilization periods.

Discussion

Clearly, the deformation of the Tymfristos tunnel was not due to

swelling of clay minerals under the presence of underground
water or of evaporites, but was produced by the shear failure of
weak rock masses subjected to high stresses (squeezing condi-
tions). Observed deformation corresponds to curve 6 of Fig. 1 for
the first phase of excavation (support system failure) and to curve
4 for the second partial reexcavation phase (high deformation but
no failure). The detailed 3D record of this extreme deformation
gives the opportunity to understand some aspects of the tunnel
failure mechanisms, something not possible in other successfully
excavated tunnels, where deformation was small. More explicitly,
information from the study tunnel refers to the following.

Nonuniform Closure of the Lining

In various approximate models, tunnel deformation is assumed to
be radially uniform (Brown et al. 1983) but the actual deforma-
tion pattern at the Tymfristos tunnel was clearly different: the
available geodetic data from numerous sections indicate an asym-
metric, nonuniform deformation-distortion of the lining; this can
probably be explained as a result of the anisotropy of the rock Fig. 10. Vertical displacement of the crown and horizontal displace-
mass properties (rock schistosity, layers inclination, lateral hetero- ment of the walls for two sections (K2 at Ch. 0⫹849 m and S13 at
geneity of the rocks—especially emphasized in Flysch condi- Ch. 1⫹171 m) versus time, during the second phase of construction.
tions). This deformation pattern is in agreement with conclusions Shaded areas correspond to fully supported sections. A late ring clo-
of Kovari and Amstad (1993) that deformation does not corre- sure seems not to be the main factor for excessive deformation [based
spond to a uniform closure of the excavated area but to a more on data of Tsatsanifos et al. (1999)].

1009 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / OCTOBER 2004

complicated pattern. However, the nonuniform closure may occur
not only in the near-field of major discontinuities or weak zones
[for instance faults, see Fig. 5 in Schubert and Steindorfer (1996)
and Fig. 15 in Kovari and Amstad (1993)] but also in cases of
anisotropies imposed by the rock texture, small scale tectonics
(microfolds), etc.
Another remarkable effect of the Tymfristos tunnel was the
overall subsidence of the upper part of the section, recorded
throughout the reexcavated tunnel segment (see above, Fig. 7). In
most cases, vertical dislocation was accompanied by failure of the
footings of the top-heading and cracking of the shotcrete lining
along horizontal lines parallel to the tunnel axis at the bottom of
the top-heading section [Fig. 5(b)]. This effect is probably indica-
tive of an inability of the primary support to withstand underes-
timated vertical pressures.
Interestingly, a somewhat similar deformation has been ob-
served in the Kallidromo tunnel in Greece and produced a more
unusual pattern of section profile: the sidewalls had greater verti-
cal movement than the crown, implying not only an overall ver-
tical movement of the section but also an extension of the upper
part of the section [Figs. 7(c and d)]. Complicated deformation
patterns have been observed in the Maneri–Uttarkashi tunnel in
India [see Goel et al. (1995)] as well.
Time-Dependent Convergence and Deformation
Propagation
The typical pattern of variation of convergence with time can be
represented by a curve of deccelerating deformation which ideally
reaches asymptotically the final (stabile) value after a short (⬃1
month) time period (Fig. 1; Sulem et al. 1987). However, certain
sections of the Tymfristos tunnel have a different pattern of con-
vergence with time: convergence followed the typical pattern and
stabilized temporarily. Some time after its stabilization, conver-
gence resumed until deformation was stabilized again at a higher
level (Fig. 11). In such cases, even though a balance between
geostatic loads and support reaction had occurred, several sec-
tions of the tunnel had to be reexcavated since the remaining
tunnel opening was substantially reduced to satisfy the project
specifications.
Resumed convergence of certain tunnel sections after their ini-
tial stabilization has been observed in other tunnels as well. For
instance, an alternation of periods of stabilization and destabili-
zation of the Kallidromo railroad tunnel in Greece and the Bolu
road tunnel in Turkey (Fig. 12) made it necessary to reexcavate
three and six times, respectively (Kallidromo tunnel unpublished
data; Dalgiç 2002b).
Especially as far as the well-documented record of conver-
gence during the second phase of excavation of the Tymfristos
Fig. 12. Resumed deformation after a stabilization period (shaded areas) for selected sections of the Kallidromo tunnel, Greece (top) and the Bolu
tunnel, Turkey (bottom). Based on unpublished data and Dalgiç (2002b).
JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / OCTOBER 2004 / 1010
Fig. 11. Idealized time-history of a “bulge-type” deformation for five
points along a tunnel segment. Sections 1 and 2, excavated first,
follow the typical time-history profile of deformation and asymptoti-
cally reach stabilization values. Extreme deformation at Section 3,
however, affects Section 2, which is destabilized and tends to a
higher stabilization level. Similar are the effects on adjacent Section
3. High strength of the rockmass and of the support shell at Sections
1 and 5 limit the propagation of induced deformation from Section 3.
tunnel is concerned, a pattern of “bulge-type” deformation for
areas of high closures (Fig. 8, Sections S13 and S9) is observed.
There is evidence that high deformation did not gradually develop
at each section, but, on the contrary, it developed at certain sec-
tions and then propagated bilaterally along a distance of several
tens of meters, until “resisting” sections were met (Fig. 13): The
difference in the time-history of vertical deformation between
Sections S9 and S13 and their adjacent Sections S15, S14, S12,
S10, S8, and S7 indicate that continuation of accumulation of
deformation in S9 and S13 was the likely mechanism for desta-
bilization of previously stabilized adjacent sections (Fig. 9).
This process of bidirectional (at both sides along the tunnel
axis) deformation propagation from the source of the initial de-
formation to rather remote sections is not unusual in geotechnical
engineering (e.g., Kuwabara and Poulos 1989) and can probably
be described as a chain or domino effect (Fig. 13). This effect was
probably not linear, but even a slightly higher pressure at certain
sections (sources of deformation) was probably responsible for
additional (induced) convergence of larger amplitude and at rela-
tively long distances [several times the amplitude of the tunnel
diameter, Figs. 11 and 14; cf. Kaiser (1993)].
Propagation of section closure along the tunnel axis has been
observed at other tunnels as well; for instance the Frejus tunnel in
France (Lunardi 2000), the Bolu tunnel in Turkey [Dalgiç 2002b;
Fig. 15(a)], and the Kallidromo and Aghios Elias tunnels in
Greece [unpublished data; Fig. 15(c)].
Such a deformation pattern is apparently much different from
the convergence-time history described by Goel et al. (1995) for
the Maneri-Uttarkashi tunnel in India, where closure developing
in stages was assigned to a repeated buckling of the steel ribs.

Fig. 13. Cartoon to explain the observed final “bulge-type” deforma-
tion assigned to a combination of a primary and an induced (bilater-
ally propagating) deformation.
Ring Closure and Strain Rates
In most tunnels convergence ceases when the opening is fully
supported and consequently deformation is stabilized to low lev-
els (Fig. 1). This was the case with most sections of the Tymfris-
tos tunnel during its reexcavation phase [for instance, Section K2,
see Fig. 10(a)]. Some sections, however, deviated from this rule,
for instance, Section S13 Fig. 10(b), and the corresponding time-
dependent convergence continued to increase even after the ring
closure, reaching the value of 6% in the vertical direction.
Such observations indicate that large amounts of total conver-
gence were not simply the result of delayed ring closure, but on
the contrary, total convergence depended on the amount of strain
just before ring closure. In “good” conditions (fair/good quality
rock mass) even a belated ring closure proved effective (K2 at Ch.
0⫹849 m), but in “bad” conditions (poor rock mass, high stress
field) an early ring closure may not be effective if strain reaches a
certain threshold (2%; Tsatsanifos et al. 1999).
Fig. 14. Separation of the “bulge-type” deformation of Sections S17
to S5 of Fig. 9 into components of primary and induced deformation.
Inferred sources of induced deformation are also shown.
1011 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / OCTOBER 2004
Failure Scenarios
The question arising is which were the exact causes of deforma-
tion of the Tymfristos tunnel. During the different construction
contracts there was no evidence of stoppages, of dramatic
changes in the rate of excavation, or of a combination of hydro-
geological changes and of swelling rock, i.e., of effects which
could explain a large-scale convergence (cf. Fig. 4 in Lunardi
2000; Karapantelakis 1991). Kavvadas (1999) suggested that the
failure of the first phase of excavation was due to an insufficient
support system installed with considerable delays for economy
reasons, while Tsatsanifos et al. (1999) suggested that extreme
convergence of the Tymfristos tunnel during the second phase of
excavation was due to an insufficient support system installed at
high strains.
However, during the second phase of the partial reexcavation
which was made more carefully than the first excavation, the
early ring closure (within a few days) did not prevent a further
accumulation of the deformation (Fig. 10). This possibly indicates
that the delay in the ring closure cannot be considered as the only
or as the principal cause of failure. A result which can be deduced
from the Bolu tunnel (Turkey) in which many sections had to be
excavated six times. Furthermore, repeated failures cannot be as-
signed to a defective construction procedure: after the first failure,
excavation and lining procedure were certainly very careful (Dal-
gic 2002b).
On the other hand, the level of strain accumulated before ring
closure of the Tymfristos tunnel seems to have played an impor-
tant role in the accumulation of excessive strain and yielding of
the lining at specific sections (see, for instance, Fig. 10; S9, S13)
of the Tymfristos tunnel. This probably explains why in “bad”
rocks even a relatively early ring closure led to an uncontrolled
increase of stresses and of deformation, and to failure.
For these reasons we suggest that the recurrence of large scale
convergence in the Tymfristos and other more recently opened
tunnels, such as the Kallidromo and Bolu, permits one to discard
bad craftsmanship, occasional delays in ring closure, etc. as prin-
cipal causes of their failure since such effects could explain
smaller scale deformations. Our study led us to search for the
causes of the extreme deformation and failure not on isolated
effects but
• first, on a possible interaction between several factors, such as
the rock strength, the excavation procedure, the support capac-
ity, the stain level during ring closure, etc. and
• second on causes and processes which have not been clearly
identified and described so far for two reasons: either because
no detailed geodetic data were available or because only a
relatively low level of deformation was observed, not permit-
ting one to recognize and describe effects such as the induced
and laterally propagating deformation.
Concerning the first point, theoretically, the geological/
geotechncal conditions along the tunnel axis were rather uniform
(Flysch deposits). If, however, this rock mass is examined at a
greater detail and especially on the basis of the experience gained
in more recent tunnels (Karapantelakis 1991; Karapantelakis et al.
2001), it can be concluded that the Flysch rockmass in most parts
of Greece (1) is extremely variable with sections of good quality
rock mass alternating with sections of very loose material and (2)
the overall rockmass quality proves much lower than that indi-
cated by in situ or laboratory geotechnical testing or conventional
geological rock mass classification systems (RMR, GSI, etc.;
Marinos and Hoek 2001).
This may indicate that although field data do not testify to any
Fig. 15. “Bulge-type” deformation along the tunnel axis for the Bolu tunnel in Turkey (a), the Tymfristos tunnel (b), and the Aghios Elias tunnel
in Greece (c). In (a) and (b) this “bulge-type” deformation is associated with induced deformation.
apparent deterioration of the rock mass quality at the two Sections
S9 and S13 (Table 3), a local increase of stresses or even a slight
change of the excavation rate or sequence had probably induced
deformation beyond the critical threshold before the ring closure,
preventing stabilization of the section.
Concerning the second point, geodetic data indicate that, ex-
cept for a “primary” deformation, certain segments even after
their stabilization were affected by “induced” deformation from
neighboring, incompetent sections (Fig. 11). This has probably
evolved to a “chain effect,” i.e., to a deformation propagating
bilaterally until sections “resisting” to and free of induced defor-
mation were met (Figs. 13 and 14). A process which may be
responsible for the “bulge-type” deformation observed in a num-
ber of tunnels examined in this paper (Fig. 15), and possibly for
the unusual deformation observed next to incompetent sections in
other tunnels [Inntaltunnel, Austria, see Fig. 5 in Schubert and
Steindorfer (1996)] and which may last for a few weeks or a few
months (Karapantelakis 1991). Obviously, such behavior could
not have been predicted during the excavation of the Tymfristos
tunnel because it was one of the very first tunnels excavated in
Flysch in Greece (Hoek and Marinos 2000).
Conclusions
The extreme deformation observed during the two-phase excava-
tion of the Tymfristos tunnel is certainly not an extraordinary
effect. What is extraordinary with this tunnel is the available geo-
detic record describing the 3D kinematic history of long segments
in which convergence (tens of centimeters to 2 m) was far beyond
the measurements noise (a few centimeters). Such data reveal that
the deformation of this tunnel only at a first approximation cor-
responds to uniform radial closure and that there is a trade-off
between strain level and delays in ring closure. Finally, the bidi-
rectional propagation of deformation from “weak” sections to
previously stabilized sections (i.e., a chain effect), seems to have
been the main cause of extreme deformation, or even of failure
JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / OCTOBER 2004 / 1012
during both the initial and the reexcavation phases.
Based on the experience of the Tymfristos tunnel failure, we
may assume that the limitation of the strain levels below the
critical level (2%) at the time of ring closure and an early [i.e.,
when deformation is still within the “green stage” (Peck, 2003,
oral presentation)] identification of a possible deformation propa-
gation process may prevent high convergence or even failure of
future tunnels excavated in “bad” rocks.
Acknowledgments
This paper is a contribution to the Research Project PENED 2001
(GSRT). The writers are deeply indebted to Dr. C. Tsatsanifos and
ERGOSE S.A. for providing unpublished data, as well as to Dr. P.
Mantziaras for information and discussions. Constructive com-
ments of three anonymous reviewers are acknowledged.
References
Brown, E. T., Bray, J., Ladanyi, B., and Hoek, E. (1983). “Ground re-
sponse curves for rock tunnels.” J. Geotech. Eng., 109(1), 15–39.
Brox, D., and Hagedorn, H. (1999).”Extreme deformation and damage
during the construction of large tunnels.” Tunn. Undergr. Space Tech-
nol., 14(1), 23–26.
Chern, J. C., Yu, C. W., and Shiao, F. Y. (1998). “Tunneling in squeezing
ground and support estimation.” Proc., Regional Symp. on Sedimen-
tary Rock Engineering, Taipei, 192–202.
Dalgiç, S. (2002a). “A comparison of predicted and actual tunnel behav-
iour in the Instabul Metro, Turkey.” Eng. Geol. (Amsterdam), 63(1–
2), 69–82.
Dalgiç, S. (2002b). “Tunneling in Squeezing Rock, the Bolu Tunnel,
Anatolian Motorway, Turkey.” Eng. Geol. (Amsterdam), 67(1–2), 73–
96.
Dalgiç, S., and Simsek, O. (2002).”Settlement predictions in the Ano-
taliam Motorway, Turkey.” Eng. Geol. (Amsterdam), 67(1–2), 185–
199.
Goel, R. K., Jethwa, J. L., and Paithankar, A. G. (1995). “Tunneling
through the young Himalayas—A case history of the Maneri—
Uttarkashi power tunnel.” Eng. Geol. (Amsterdam), 39, 31–44.
Guenot, A., Panet, M., and Sulem, J. (1985). “A new aspect in tunnel
closure interpretation.” 26th U.S. Symp. on Rock Mechanics, Rapid
City, S.D. 455–460.
Hoek, E. (1999). “Support for very weak rock associated with faults and
shear zones.” Int. Symp. on Rock Support and Reinforcement Practice
in Mining, Kalgoorlie, Australia.
Hoek, E. (2001). “Big tunnels in bad rocks.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron.
Eng., 127(9), 726–740.
Hoek, E., and Marinos, P. (2000). “Predicting squeeze.” Tunnels Tunnel-
ling Int., November, 45–51.
Kaiser, P. (1993). “Deformation monitoring for stability assessment of
underground openings.” Compressive rock engineering, Pergamon, 4,
607–630.
Karapantelakis, C. (1991). “Geotechnical problems in the underground
excavations and the dam foundations in the hydroelectric project
Piges Aoos.” Bull. Geol. Soc. Greece, 15(4), 327–344 (in Greek).
Karapantelakis, C., Raftopoulos, S., and Minopetros, C. (2001). “Under-
ground works of the Metsovitikos hydroelectric project—Experience
from design and construction.” Bull. Geol. Soc. Greece, 34(5), 1663–
1670 (in Greek).
Kavvadas, M. (1999). “Design of underground structures.” Graduate
courses notes, National Technical University of Athens, 具http://
www.civil.ntua.gr/kavvadas/典.
Kontogianni, V., and Stiros, S. (2001). “Geodetic monitoring of tunnel
deformation.” Bull. Geol. Soc. Greece, 34(5), 1671–1678 (in Greek).
Kontogianni, V., and Stiros, S. (2002). “Shallow tunnel convergence: Pre-
dictions and observations.” Eng. Geol. (Amsterdam), 63(3–4), 333–
345.
Kovari, K. (1993). “Erroneous concepts behind NATM.” Lecture given at
the Rabcewicz-Geomechanical Colloquium in Salzburg.
Kovari, K., and Amstad, C. (1993). “Decision making in tunneling based
on field measurements.” Compressive rock engineering, Vol. 4, Perga-
1013 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / OCTOBER 2004
View publication stats
mon, Oxford, U.K., 571–606.
Kuwabara, F., and Poulos, H. G., (1989). “Downdrag forces in group of
piles.” J. Geotech. Eng., 115(6), 806–818.
Lunardi, P. (2000). “Design and constructing tunnels—ADECO-RS ap-
proach.” Tunnels and tunneling international special supplement,
具http://www.rocksoil.com/典.
Marinos, P., and Hoek, E. (2001). “Estimating the geotechnical properties
of heterogeneous rock masses such as Flysch.” Bull. Eng. Geol. En-
viron., 60, 85–92.
Muir Wood, A. (1993). “Development of tunnel support philosophy.”
Compressive rock engineering, Vol. 4, Pergamon, Oxford, U.K., 349–
368.
Özsan, A., and Karpuz, C., (2001). “Preliminary support design for An-
kara subway extension tunnel.” Eng. Geol. (Amsterdam), 59, 161–
172.
Panet, M., and Guenot, A., (1982). “Analysis of convergence behind the
face of a tunnel.” Proc., Tunnelling 82, IMM, Brighton, 197–204.
Sakurai, S., (1983). “Displacement measurements associated with the de-
sign of underground openings.” Proc., Int. Symp. Field Measurements
in Geomechanics, Zurich, 2, 1163–1178.
Schubert, W., and Steindorfer, A. (1996). “Selective displacements moni-
toring during tunnel excavation.” Felsbau, 14 (2), 93–97.
Singh, B., and Goel, R. K. (1999). Rock mass classification. A practical
approach in civil engineering, Elsevier, New York.
Sulem, J., Panet, M., and Guenot, A. (1987). “Closure analysis in deep
tunnels.” Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. Geomech. Abstr., 24(3), 145–
154.
Technical Chamber of Greece, Central Greece Section (2000). “The Tym-
fristos tunnel.” Information Bull. Tech. Chamber of Greece, 2089, 129
(in Greek).
Tsatsanifos, C. P., Mantziaras, P. M., and Georgiou, D., (1999). “Squeez-
ing rock response to NATM tunneling. A case study.” Proc., Int. Symp
on Geotechnical Aspects of Underground Construction in Soft Rock-
Balkema, 167–172.