Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 27 (2012) 13–22

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tust

Input to the application of the convergence confinement method

with time-dependent material behaviour of the support
Gunter G. Gschwandtner ⇑, Robert Galler 1
Chair of Subsurface Engineering, University of Leoben, Erzherzog Johann Strasse 3, A-8700 Leoben, Austria

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The convergence confinement method is a two-dimensional, analytical method used in the design of sub-
Received 16 June 2010 surface structures and for the description of ground and system behaviour. Its purpose is to derive the
Received in revised form 3 June 2011 required support measures from the combination of the following values: the ground characteristic
Accepted 15 June 2011
curve; a model of the development of the radial deformations of the excavation surface in the axial
Available online 13 July 2011
direction of the tunnel; the support characteristic curve; and the installation time and location of the
support measures. The convergence confinement method is usually employed in the preliminary design
Keywords:
of underground structures. This article investigates the various methods of the convergence confinement
Convergence confinement method
Ground characteristic curve
method and includes comments on possible application scenarios. One point of focus considers the
Support characteristic curve system-bolting of rock mass as a supporting as well as a reinforcement measure. Another view is
Shotcrete taken on the time-dependent material behaviour of shotcrete and its adaptation to the convergence
Time-dependent material behaviour confinement method.
Tunnelling Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Carranza-Torres and Fairhurst (Carranza-Torres, 2004; Carranza-

Underground structures can be designed by using many differ-
ent calculation methods. While the preliminary design is domi-
nated by analytical and empirical methods, fully modelling the
entire construction process in the course of numerical calculations
represents the standard procedure for detail design today. Further-
more analytical methods can act as a tool for quickly verifying the
numerical calculations and assessing the system behaviour during
all stages of the design and construction process. Based on that
knowledge, the design can be adjusted accordingly. An example
for such an analytical procedure is the convergence confinement
method (CCM).
A major development of the CCM was done by Pacher (1964).
He investigated the deformation behaviour in an experimental
tunnel to describe the ground behaviour.
Feder and Arwanitakis (1976) improved the convergence con-
finement method by implementing a linear elastic–ideal plastic
material behaviour into the ground characteristic curve. Further-
more, a very important achievement is, that in this case the circular
opening and the central symmetrical homogenous stress state is
not a requirement for the analytical solution. Most of those
solutions use the Mohr–Coulomb failure criterion. In 1992
Torres and Fairhurst, 2000) developed an application to use an
elastic–perfectly plastic rock masses with Hoek–Brown failure
criterion.
In the last view years the convergence confinement method
experienced a revival. Newer publications such as (Alejano et al.,
2010) from Alejano, describe the implementation of Hoek–Brown
strain-softening behaviour into the convergence confinement
method.
An important part of the CCM is the support characteristic
curve. It describes the strain–stress relationship of the support
measures against the rock mass. For the application of the CCM
in real projects, AFTES (Panet et al., 2001) from 2001 can be seen
as a fundamental work. A major improvement for the calculation
of shotcrete lining and the time dependent behaviour was devel-
oped by Oreste (2003). This paper gives also an overview of the
possibilities which the convergence confinement method has to
offer.
2. Basics
2.1. Assumptions and preconditions

⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +43 (0) 3842 402 3408; fax: +43 (0) 03842 402 6602.
E-mail addresses: gunter.gschwandtner@unileoben.ac.at, gunter.gschwandt-
ner@gmx.at (G.G. Gschwandtner), robert.galler@unileoben.ac.at (R. Galler).
1
Tel.: +43 (0) 3842 402 3400.
Determining the ground characteristic curve requires an analyt-
ical solution, which usually makes use of the theory of an infinite
plate with a circular hole. For the analytical solution the following
assumptions are made:

0886-7798/$ - see front matter Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.tust.2011.06.003
14 G.G. Gschwandtner, R. Galler / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 27 (2012) 13–22
 the theory of an infinite plate is a 2D model with plane strain
conditions and infinite dimension,
 circular opening,
 central symmetrical homogenous stress state (hydrostatic
stress),
 constant primary stress,
 homogenous material properties of the rock mass,
 non rheological material behaviour,
 isotropic material law.
Only few models partially differ from these assumptions, like
for example the one delivered by Feder and Arwanitakis (1976),
who – with limitations – provides geometry for any state of pri-
mary stress and oval cavity in his calculations. Most of the assump-
tions stated above are only met to a certain extent in reality. To be
precise, different ground characteristic curves and different sup-
port characteristic curve would have to be determined for each
point on the excavation surface; in addition, construction se-
quences cannot be factored out in the calculation, and can only
be considered as a simplification.
2.2. Stress distribution
The stress distribution around a cavity in an elastic medium has
been determined by Lame and Kirsch. If, however, the circumferen-
tial stresses at the excavation surface exceed the rock mass
strength, then a zone with plastic material behaviour or softening
develops. Kastner (1962) solved the differential equation for the
determination of the stress distribution around cavities in linear
elastic–ideal plastic Mohr–Coulomb (MC) media. Extensions have
also been derived for Hoek–Brown (HB) media and with more com-
plex behaviour after a failure, specifically linear elastic–ideal plas-
tic with sudden or gradual softening (Carranza-Torres, 2004; Feder
and Arwanitakis, 1976; Hoek et al., 1983; Sharan, 2008). The soft-
ening can be taken into account in the convergence confinement
method by altering the strength or strain properties. The transition
from plastic to elastic behaviour takes place at the plastic radius
(rpl). Fig. 1 shows the stress distribution around a circular excava-
tion with the development of a plastic zone for rock with linear
elastic–ideal plastic and linear elastic–brittle ideal plastic material
behaviour. To compare the two material models – Mohr–Coulomb
Fig. 1. Comparison of radial (r) and circumferential (t) stress distribution around a circular cavity for various material models (HB and MC); Itasca Consulting Group, 2006;
Salencon, 1969.
(MC) and Hoek–Brown (HB) – the material parameters were con-
verted using the area replacement method. Although there is still
a small difference in the stress distribution, the reason for this is
the different shape of the line of failure between the MC and HB
material model.
Table 1 shows the material parameters for the Mohr–Coulomb
(MC) and the Hoek–Brown (HB) material model as well as the geo-
metrical parameter of the underground structure and the specific
weight.
The parameters of Table 1 are used in the examples for the
description of the rock mass and the ground characteristic in this
paper.
2.3. Displacement distribution
According to Feder and Arwanitakis (1976) the aggregated
deformations around the excavation are made up of three
components:
– elastic component,
– plastic component,
– volume increase in the plastic zone,
The displacements are determined through the integration of
the stress field in combination with a material law. When writing
the differential equation attention needs to be paid to the individ-
ual strain components. In most cases, a planar displacement state
is assumed and the component in the tunnel’s axial direction is
set to zero (Seeber, 1999). This means that only the circumferential
and the radial strain components in the plastic zone are consid-
ered. The volume increase is determined by a loosening factor,
which also can be definite by the angle of dilatation. Some difficul-
ties in the displacement distribution are the initial assumptions
and the integration constants used in the calculation. As a calcula-
tion example the radial displacement distribution after Salencon
(Itasca Consulting Group, 2006) is illustrated in Eq. (1).
r
ur ¼ v
2G
Radial displacement distribution after Salencon (Itasca Consult-
ing Group, 2006)
 G.G. Gschwandtner, R. Galler / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 27 (2012) 13–22 15

Table 1 ment distributions results from the different assumptions like

Material parameters and geometrical parameters for the the boundary conditions and the dispersal factor.
calculations.
In addition, the E-modulus and the V-modulus are stress-
Geometrical parameters dependent. The modification of the Younǵs Modulus or the V-mod-
Specific weight (kN/m3) 25 ulus is disregarded in most methods, although its influence can be
Tunnel depth (m) 200
Diameter (m) 11
grave.

Material parameters
E (GPa) 846 3. General remarks on the convergence confinement method
m 0.35
G (MPa) 313.33 In this paper the convergence confinement method (CCM)
Mohr–Coulomb parameters Fenner, 1938; Gesta et al., N/A; Pacher, 1964 is treated as an
c (MPa) 27.35 analytical, two-dimensional method that is able to deduced the
U (°) 0.382
ground and system behaviour from three different curves:
rUCS (MPa) 1.26
Hoek–Brown parameters
 ground characteristic curve (GCC),
mb 0.6625
s 0.00022  support characteristic curve (SCC),
a 0.5  longitudinal deformation profiles (LDP).
rCi (MPa) 15
GSI 24
These curves will be explained in detail in the next chapters.
The most important part is the point of intersection, between the
 ground characteristic curve (GCC) and the support characteristic
rUCS  curve (SCC), where the loading forces of the rock mass and the sta-
v ¼ ð2m  1Þ p0 þ
k1 bilizing forces of the installed support reaches the point of
!  
ð1  mÞðk  1Þ  rUCS  rp ðk1Þ rp ðkw þ1Þ
2
equilibrium.
þ pi þ Moreover, to simulate the construction process in a simplified
k þ kw k  1 r0 r
   ðk1Þ way the two dimensional system has to be transformed into a
ðkw k þ 1Þ 
rUCS r
þ ð1  mÞ  m pi þ ð1Þ three dimensional system. This can be achieved by utilizing an
k þ kw k  1 r0 analytical model describing the radial displacements in the longi-
tudinal direction of the tunnel. In particular LDP will be used to de-
where G is the shear modulus, k the passive side pressure coeffi- clare the location of the tunnel face and the installation of the
cient, kw the loosening factor, p0 the primary stress, pi the support support. The combination and interaction of all three curves is
pressure, r the range control variable, r0 the excavation radius, rp shown schematically in Fig. 3.
the plastic radius, ur the radial displacements, m the poisson’s ratio,
and rUCS is the unconfined compressive strength. 4. Ground characteristic curve
The displacements at the surface of the excavation and the dis-
placement distributions varying in the plastic zone according to The ground characteristic curve represents the relationship be-
the method used. However, the theories investigated are Sulem tween the effective internal support pressure and the radial defor-
et al. (1987), Salencon (1969), Feder and Arwanitakis (1976) and mation at the excavation surface. The ground characteristic curve
Hoek et al. (1983), Hoek (2007) as shown in Fig. 2. The calculation is created by reducing the support pressure of the primary stress
results from the mentioned theories are approximately the same in level to zero. When the support pressure is reduced, the rock be-
the plastic area. The variation in the plastic part of the displace- haves elastically up to the critical support pressure pi,crit. If the

Fig. 2. Different deformation distribution at the excavation surface (Gschwandtner, 2010) according to Sulem et al. (1987), Salencon (1969), HB (Gschwandtner, 2010), Feder
elasto-plastic (Feder and Arwanitakis, 1976; Feder, 1978), HB elasto-plastic (with dilatation) (Carranza-Torres, 2004).
16 G.G. Gschwandtner, R. Galler / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 27 (2012) 13–22
Fig. 3. Example for the interaction of the three curves in the CCM (ground characteristic curve, support characteristic curve and longitudinal displacements profile); including
the important points (tunnel face, support installation, and point of equilibrium between rock mass and support) for a support calculation.
effective support pressure falls below the critical support pressure,
plastic material behaviour or the softening occurs. Also, the time
dependent behaviour of the rock can be taken into account by
altering the strength and deformation parameters.
5. Radial deformations in the axial direction of the tunnel
The longitudinal deformation profile can be used to determine
the radial displacements along the tunnel in association with the
distance (x) from tunnel face. A temporal relationship can be taken
into account by considering a constant advance rate (m) (Eq. (2)).
Temporal relationship between the advance rate and distance
from the tunnel face
x½m
xðtÞ½d ¼
v ½m=d
The in numerical simulations the pre-deformations are consid-
ered by a pre-relaxation factor.
The installed support and/or the construction process has influ-
ence on the displacement distribution along the tunnel. The crite-
rion for the deformation velocity is the energy which is stored in
the rock mass. In the Mohr–Coulomb diagram this energy can be
seen between the ground characteristic curve and the support char-
acteristic curve. Fig. 4 shows the comparison of several longitudinal
deformation profiles (LDP) with different analytic solutions (Panet
and Guenot, 1982; Corbetta and Nguyen-Minh, 1992; Unlu and
Gercek, 2003; Hoek, 2007; Vlachopoulos and Diederichs, 2009;
Pilgerstorfer and Radončić, 2009). The various curves of the radial
deformation along the tunnel vary from each other substantially,
particularly in the heading area where the support is installed. For
this reason the analytical calculation of the utilization ratio of the
support depends on which theory will be used in the calculation
process.
Also, the support installation and the construction process have
some influence on the pre-deformations behind the tunnel face
and on the displacement distribution along the tunnel. In general
this process is subjected to an implicit calculation process. How-
ever, in the present article the process will be taken into account
with an incremental approach.
6. Support characteristic curve
The support characteristic curve acts as a tool to depict the sup-
port measures in the convergence confinement method (bearing
capacity curve of the support measures). The support characteristic
curve or the actual support pressure pi at a predefined displace-
ment of the excavation edge can be expressed mathematically
through material parameters like stiffness (KSN), maximum sus-
tainable stress (pi,ult) and strain (ur,max) (Gesta et al., N/A; Panet
et al., 2001).
ð2Þ In every calculation step the calculated support pressure pi is
compared with the maximum sustainable stress, which can be
obtained through the load-bearing capacity of the support, and
has to be less than (pi,ult). The aggregated displacements at the sup-
port failure (ur,ult,pl) consist of the three:
– displacements occurring at the support installation (ur,s),
– the elastic deformations (ur,el) of the support,
– plastic deformations of the support (ur,pl).
Fig. 5 illustrates a schematic diagram of the support character-
istic curve and the different parts of the deformation.
Eqs. (3) and (4) show the calculation process for the effective
support pressure at a displacement (ur) and the calculation of the
total displacements at support failure.
Effective support pressure (Gesta et al., N/A)
ur
pi ¼ K SN  ð3Þ
r0
where pi is the support pressure, KSN the stiffness, ur the radial dis-
placements, and r0 is the excavation radius.
 G.G. Gschwandtner, R. Galler / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 27 (2012) 13–22
Fig. 4. Comparison of various theories for the development of radial deformations; Panet and Guenot (1982), Corbetta and Nguyen-Minh (1992), Unlu and Gercek (2003),
Hoek (2007), Vlachopoulos and Diederichs (2009), Pilgerstorfer and Radončić (2009).
Fig. 5. Schematic image of the support characteristic curve; y-axis is the support
pressure and the x-axis shows the displacements of the support.
Total displacements at the support failure
r0  pi;ult
ur;ult;pl ¼ ur;S þ þ ur;pl
K SN
where ur,ult,pl is the radial displacements, ur,S the displacements
occurring at the support installation, ur,pl the radial displacements
(plastic part), KSN the stiffness, ur the radial displacements, and r0
is the excavation radius.
6.1. Shotcrete
The shotcrete shell is defined in the convergence confinement
method as a circular ring. The influence of the bending moment
can be calculated through the thickness of the shotcrete shell. Fur-
thermore, a defined bound between the shotcrete measures and
the rock mass can be taken into account too. In reality shotcrete
displays a time-dependent material behaviour with strength and
deformational behaviour changing over time. This also includes
creeping, relaxation and shrinkage effects. In this paper the time-
dependent material behaviour in the convergence confinement
method can be utilized after Schubert (1988) or Aldrian (1991)
and after Oreste (2003).
The system stiffness KSN,SpC of the shotcrete shell, with the shell
having a constant thickness (outer face of the shotcrete shell minus
17
– outer face of the shotcrete shell minus), is calculated as shown in
Eq. (5). In the case of a thin shell (e) is much smaller than the tun-
nel radius (r) the stiffness can be obtained via Eq. (6).
Stiffness of shotcrete shell (Gesta et al., N/A)
ESpC  ðr 2a  r 2i Þ
K SN;SpC ¼ ð5Þ
ð1 þ mSpC Þ  ½ð1  2  mSpC Þ  r 2a þ r 2i 
KSN,SpC is the stiffness of the shotcrete shell, ESpC the Youngs Modu-
lus of the shotcrete, vSpC the Poissońs ratio of the shotcrete, ra the
outer face of the shotcrete shell, and ri is the inner face of the shot-
crete shell.
Stiffness of shotcrete shell with (e  r) (Gesta et al., N/A)
ESpC eSpC
K SN;SpC ¼  ð6Þ
1  m2 r SpC
KSN,SpC is the stiffness of the shotcrete shell, ESpC the Younǵs Modu-
lus of the shotcrete, vSpC the poissońs ratio of the shotcrete, rSpC the
radius in the middle of the shotcrete shell, and eSpC is the thickness
of the shotcrete shell.
Eq. (7) shows how to calculate the maximum effective support
pressure.
Maximum support pressure for a shotcrete shell (Gesta et al.,
N/A)
ð4Þ  
1 r2
pi;ult;SpC ¼  bSpc  1  i2 ð7Þ
2 ra
where pi,ult,SpC is the maximum sustainable stress of the shortcrete
shell, bSpC the shotcrete compressive strength, ra the outer face of
the shotcrete shell, ri is the inner face of the shotcrete shell.
At every point during the calculation process with a time-
dependent material behaviour, the normal stress in the shotcrete
shell has to be smaller than the maximum support pressure
(pi,ult,SpC). The size of the maximum support pressure depends on
the strength-development over time. In this case the formulation
after Aldrian (1991) can be used.
Time dependent strength-development (Aldrian, 1991)
bSpCðtÞ ¼ bSpCð28DÞ  0; 03  t; 0 < t < 8h
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
t5 ð8Þ
bSpCðtÞ ¼ bSpCð28DÞ  ; t > 8h
45 þ 0925  t
where bSpC(t) is the shotcrete compressive strength at the time t,
bSpC(28D) the shotcrete compressive strength after 28 days, and t is
the time in hours.
In addition to the time dependent compressive strength a time
dependet Younǵs Modulus can also be taken into account. This
18 G.G. Gschwandtner, R. Galler / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 27 (2012) 13–22

influences the support stiffness subsequently during the develop- By utilizing a converted form of Eq. (8) the existing stress is cal-
ment of the support pressure over time. The following Eqs. (9) culated through the enforced displacements of the surrounding
and (10) are two examples how the time dependency of the rock mass (Eq. (12)).
Younǵs Modulus can be implemented in the calculation process.
Time dependent Younǵs Modulus (Aldrian, 1991) 6.2. Yielding elements
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
t In deep tunnelling large displacements of rock mass can occur.
EspCðtÞ ¼ ESpCð28DÞ  ð9Þ
4; 2 þ 0; 85  t Despite the rapid hardening, the shotcrete can initially accept large
strains (up to 1%). If the compression strain forced on the shotcrete
where ESpC(t) is the Younǵs Modulus of the shotcrete at the time t,
is too large at a particular time, yielding elements can be installed
ESpC(28D) the Younǵs Modulus of the shotcrete after 28 days, and t
(Schubert et al., 1996). In the convergence confinement method
is the time in hours.
the yielding elements are implemented by their load bearing
Time dependent Younǵs Modulus (Oreste, 2003)
capacity (FSE), at which the displacements occur at a defined load
EspCðtÞ ¼ ESpCð28DÞ  ð1  eat Þ ð10Þ level. This load bearing capacity must be suited to the time-depen-
dent load-bearing behaviour of the shotcrete as well as the time-
where ESpC(t) is the Younǵs Modulus of the shotcrete at the time t, dependent loading of the rock mass due to the deformations of
ESpC(28D) the Younǵs Modulus of the shotcrete after 28 days, a the the excavation work (Eq. (13)).
factor (0.01–0.05), and t is the time in hours. Load bearing capacity for the calculation of yielding elements
After Aldrian (1991) the time-dependent material behaviour of
the shotcrete, with the load history taken into account, is calcu- F SE F SE
pi;SE ¼ ; < bSpC ð13Þ
lated as follows (Eq. (11)). r SpC ASpC
Calculation of the strain in shotcrete after Aldrian (1991)
where pi,SE is the activating support pressure of the yielding ele-
r3  r2 ment, FSE the load bearing capacity, rSpC the radius in the middle
e3 ¼ e2 þ þ r2  DC  ðe8a2 6 þ 1Þ
ESpCð28DÞ  V ðt;aÞ  f of the shotcrete shell, ASpC the cross-sectional area of the shotcrete
DC shell, and bSpC is the shotcrete compressive strength.
þ ðr2  C d1  ed2 Þ  ð1  e Q Þ þ Desh þ Det ð11Þ The friction-bond between the shotcrete shell and the rock
mass has to be taken into account too. Based on that, the maximum
where e2,3 is the strain at point (time) 2 and 3, r2,3 the stress at
utilization of the shotcrete does not occur directly at the yielding
point (time) 2 and 3, E28 the younǵs modulus after 28 days, V ðt;aÞ
element (Pottler, 1990), and as a result neither does the failure in
the ordered deformation modulus, F the constant; factor for load
the shotcrete shell. Furthermore, the system stiffness is different
relieving, ed21 the delayed elastic strain, DC the time approach for
between a support system with yielding elements, and one with-
the progress of the viscous strain, Q the constant; from the velocity
out them (Radončić et al., 2009).
of the reversible creep deformation, Desh the change of the shrink-
Fig. 6 shows a simplified CCM example of a shotcrete shell with
age-strain, Det the change of the temperature-strain, a2 the load
and without yielding elements, time-dependent material behav-
factor, and Cd1 is the limit of the reversible creep deformation.
iour for the shotcrete after Oreste (2003) and two different advance
Calculation of the stress by predetermined strain in shotcrete
rates of 2 and 5 m per day. For this calculation a constant LDP after
after Aldrian (1991)
Hoek et al. (1983), with consideration of the maximum radial dis-
 DC
 placements, was used. For the maximum displacements and the
e3  e2 þ ESpCð28DÞr2V ðt;aÞ f þ ed2 1  e Q  Desh  Det GCC the theory after Salencon (Itasca Consulting Group, 2006), as
r3 ¼  DC
 ð12Þ
in Eq. (1), was used. The parameter for the shotcrete and the yield-
1
ESpCð28DÞ V ðt;aÞ f
þ DC  ðe8a2 6 þ 1Þ þ C d1 1  e Q
ing elements can bee seen in Table 2.

Fig. 6. Shotcrete with yielding elements; dashed (related to the right-hand side): duration from/until passing the face in dependence on the advance rate (Aldrian, 1991;
Kainrath-Reumayer et al., 2009; Kienberger, 1999; Oreste, 2003).
 G.G. Gschwandtner, R. Galler / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 27 (2012) 13–22 19

Table 2 Stiffness of end-anchored rock bolts

Parameter for the shotcrete and the yielding  
elements. 1 r0 4  lA
¼  þQ ð15Þ
Shotcrete
K SN;A eA  fA p  dA  EA
bSpC (MPa) 25
where dA is the rock bolt diameter, lA the rock bolt length, eA, fA the
ESpC (MPa) 15,000
vSpC (–) 0.2 radial and circumferential distance between the rock bolts, EA the
eSpC (m) 0.15 younǵs modulus of the rock bolt rod, and Q is the factor for the dis-
Yielding elements placements of the rock bolt head (rock bolt plate).
FSE1 (kN) 600 On the other hand, the effect of the rock bolts can be imple-
FSE2 (kN) 700 mented by a ‘‘smeared’’ effect on the anchored rock mass area,
FSE3 (kN) 1000
which is mostly common for fully grouted rock bolts. Normally an
Displacements FSE1 (m) 0.07
Displacements FSE2 (m) 0.06
improvement of rock mass properties (strength and deformation
Displacements FSE3 (m) 0.05 characteristics) can be assumed. This is usually done by increasing
the cohesion in the anchored area, which is influenced by a number
of factors: strength and deformation ability of rock bolts, rock bolt
mortar and the rock mass on the one hand, and geometric factors
In Fig. 6 it is evident that the SCC of the shotcrete shell without
such as rock bolt length and diameter on the other hand.
any yielding element does not reach the point of equilibrium. The
The size of the increase of cohesion Dc can be determined by
consequence is a failure of the support and a collapse of the tunnel.
laboratory and in-situ tests. Several different semi-empirical and/
The additional application of yielding elements in the shotcret
or analytical calculation methods addressing this topic have been
shell allows the support construction to absorb more deformation.
developed. The best known examples are the works of Bjurstrom
In this case the SCC reaches the point of equilibrium. Fig. 6 shows
(1974), Schubert (1984) and Spang (1988).
the effect of different advance rates (2 and 5 m per day) on the SCC.
In case of the material behaviour after Mohr–Coulomb, includ-
ing the strength parameters (c) and (u) and the uni-axial compres-
6.3. Rock bolts sive strength (bdg), the increase of the cohesion can be taken into
account in two different ways as shown in Figs. 7 and 8. Both ways
In the convergence confinement method rock bolts are catego- use the effective support pressure r3 (resulting from the rock bolts)
rised into two groups: end-anchored and fully grouted. End-an- to increase the rock mass strength from (bd)g to (bdg,A).
chored rock bolts are fixed to the rock mass at the full depth of The common approach for increasing the cohesion is the ‘‘pas-
the hole and at the edge of the cavity. Conventional end-anchored sive approach’’ (Fig. 7), in which the original conditions of the rock
rock bolts are seldom used in deep tunnelling, and there are anchor mass will be increased by (Dcp), subsequently resulting in a verti-
systems able to absorb large displacements (Kainrath-Reumayer cal shift of the line of failure in the Mohr–Coulomb diagram. The
and Galler, 2008a). second and more conservative approach (normally for u < 45°) is
In this case the support pressure is calculated with a homoge- the ‘‘active approach’’. In this case cohesion increase is imple-
nized external force as in Eq. (14). The system stiffness (KSN,A) mented by a horizontal shift of the s-axis in the Mohr–Coulomb
therefore depends on many different parameters like total length, diagram.
diameter, Young’s modulus of the rock bolt and the rock bolt
installation grid (Eq. (15)). 1 þ sin u
Dc p ¼ r 3 
Maximum support pressure of end-anchored rock bolts 2  cos u

F A;A Dca ¼ r3  tan u

pi;A ¼ ð14Þ
AA
Fig 9 represents a summary of results from analytical (index a)
where pi,A is the support pressure, FA,A the supporting force for one and numerical (index n) calculations from a discoid model. The case
rock bolt, and AA, is the rock bolt assigned area. studies were:

Fig. 7. ‘‘Passive’’ approach for the increase of the cohesion in the u–s diagram (Kainrath-Reumayer and Dolsak, 2008; Kainrath-Reumayer and Galler, 2008a).
20 G.G. Gschwandtner, R. Galler / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 27 (2012) 13–22
Fig. 8. ‘‘Active’’ approach for the increase of the cohesion in the u–s diagram (Kainrath-Reumayer and Dolsak, 2008; Kainrath-Reumayer and Galler, 2008a).
 analytical solution with no rock bolts,
 analytical solution with a passive cohesion increase (Dcp),
 analytical solution with a active cohesion increase (Dca),
 analytical solution with support pressure from the rock bolts
(pi,a),
 numerical simulation with support pressure from rock bolts
(pi,n).
For the numerical calculation FLAC 2D 6.0 was used. The results
between the analytical and numerical calculation without rock
bolts shows comparable results for the stress distribution and
the size of the plastic zone. The analytical calculation, with the
simplified approaches of the system-bolting, shows a minor differ-
Fig. 9. Summary of results for analytical and numerical stress distributions
(circumferential and radial) for a circular opening with and without rock bolts
(Kainrath-Reumayer and Galler, 2008b).
ence between the active and passive approach for the increase of
the cohesion.
For fully grouted rock bolts calculating the stiffness is much
more complicated and depends on many factors, like the displace-
ments distribution (including the displacements rate) the excava-
tion edge and the hardening speed of the rock bolt mortar.
Schubert (1984) and Blumel (1996) have conducted a pull-out test
of rock bolts in hardened mortar. The results of these tests (Fig. 10)
are used to develop a highly simplified model of the behaviour of
fully grouted rock bolts. This essentially considers:
– the load rate of the fully grouted rock bolt,
– the development of strength behaviour of the rock bolt mortar
as well as the failure load,
– the breaking elongation of the rock bolt rod.
The displacement rate at the excavation edge is calculated via
the LDP as shown in Eq. (16).
Displacement rate at the excavation edge
ur;2  ur;1
u_ 12 ¼ ð16Þ
t min;2  t min;1
where u12 is the displacement rate time 1 to time 2, ur,1 the radial
displacement at time 1, ur,2 the radial displacement at time 1, tmin,1
the time 1, and tmin,2 the time 2.
Fig. 10. 3D diagram of a pull-out test after Blumel (1996).
 G.G. Gschwandtner, R. Galler / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 27 (2012) 13–22
Table 3
Parameters for the fully grouted rock bolt.
Fully grouted rock bolt
bA (MPa) 590
EA (MPa) 210,000
eA (m) 0.75
fA (m) 0.75
lA (m) 10
dA (m) 0.024
Q 0
FA,max (kN) 266.91
The maximum stress and thus the effective force in the rock bolt
rod can be assumed as a simplification proportional to the dis-
placement rate and is determined by Hookés Law. The strength
and deformation development of the rock bolt mortar is taken into
account with a similar approach after Oreste (2003) for shotcrete.
Comparison with manufacturers data shows that the strength of
the rock bolt mortar is overestimated at a young age, but repro-
duces the results of the experiments from Blumel (1996) suffi-
ciently accurate in the first approach (Eq. (17)).
Rock bolt mortar strength development model after Oreste
(2003)
F A;zul ¼ F A;max  ð1  efT tðhÞ Þ
where FA,zul is the acceptable rock bolt force, FA,max the maximum
rock bolt force, t(h) the mortar age in [h], and fT is the factor for
the strength development (0.01 and 0.05).
In consideration of the criteria for the pull-out resistance (shear
strength) as a function of the displacement rate and the capacity
utilization of the rock bolt tensile force the effective support pres-
sure, the increasing of the cohesion can be calculated with the
equations in Fig. 7 or Fig. 8. The parameters for the fully grouted
rock bolt are shown in the following Table 3.
Fig. 11 shows a fully grouted rock bolt system as a rock mass
improving measure. At the point ‘‘A’’ in the diagram is the rock bolt
installation and the start where the increase of the cohesion is
Fig. 11. Example for increasing cohesion in the convergence confinement method.
21
taken into account. The consequence is a improvement of the rock
mass strength and a change in the GCC.
The deformation of the rock bolt plate, from point ‘‘B’’ to ‘‘C’’, is
taken into account too by keeping the rock mass strength at a con-
stant level. Some effects of steel tubes installed between the rock
bolt plate and the rock mass can also be considered, like yielding
elements for the shotcrete shell. During the calculation two inqui-
ries, regarding the maximum tensile strength and the maximum
tolerable displacement of the rock bolt, are made. If any of the
two specified criteria is exceeded, some additional support mea-
sures are needed, otherwise the rock bolt system will fail. Mathe-
matically, this can occur at the same time at all points of the
excavation edge, but since this is only a theoretical result, it can
be disregarded for the purpose at hand.
7. Conclusion
The convergence confinement method is a demonstrative and
quick tool for roughly estimating ground and system behaviour,
which can be used as a first approximation of the fundamental
requirements for support measures. This approach has a limited
scope of application due to the assumptions that have to be made
for analytical methods. These methods vary substantially from
each other. This is why a fundamental understanding of system
ð17Þ behaviour in general and failure processes in particular is essential
for correctly applying the convergence confinement method. Also
the combination of the three curves in the CCM plays a major role.
This paper dine refers on four different theories for the GCC, six
different theories for the LDP and many more for the SCC depend-
ing on the support measures. Based on the high amount of different
basic approaches and theories the calculation and graphical results
deviate from each other.
One factor that should not be neglected in the application is the
time dependence, which has to be taken into account during the
determination of the ground behaviour and the support character-
istic curves.
The time-dependent material behaviour, including the process
of the strength and Younǵs modulus determination of shotcrete,
22 G.G. Gschwandtner, R. Galler / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 27 (2012) 13–22
is very important, especially the distinctive modification in the
early stage after the installation of the shotcrete shell (Fig. 6).
A largely new development in the CCM is the implementation of
the time-dependent increase of the cohesion of fully grouted rock
bolts (Fig. 11). This article also gives a short overview of the diver-
sity of application possibilities of the different theories from the
convergence confinement method and shows a huge amount of
prospects for further research work.
References
Aldrian, W., 1991. Beitrag zum Materialverhalten von fruh belastetem Spritzbeton;
Dissertation; Institut fur Geomechanik, Tunnelbau und Konstruktiven Tiefbau,
Montanuniversitat Leoben.
Alejano, L.R. et al., 2010. Application of the convergence-confinement-method to
tunnels in rock masses exhibiting Hoek–Brown strain-softening behaviour. Int.
J. Rock Mech. Mining Sci. 47 (1), 150–160.
Bjurstrom, S., 1974 Shear strength of hard rock joints reinforced by grouted
untensioned bolts. 3rd ISRM Congress, Denver.
Blumel, M., 1996. Untersuchungen zum Tragverhalten vollvermortelter Felsbolzen
im druckhaften Gebirge. Dissertation; Institut fur Felsmechanik und Tunnelbau,
TU Graz.
Carranza-Torres, C., 2004. Elasto-plastic solution of tunnel problems using the
generalized form of the Hoek–Brown failure criterion; Itasca Consulting Group
Inc., Minnesota USA. Int. J. Rock Mech. Mining Sci. 41 (Suppl. 1), 629–639.
Carranza-Torres, C., Fairhurst, C., 2000. Application of convergence-confinement
method of tunnel design to rock masses that satisfy the Hoek–Brown failure
criterion. Tunnel. Underg. Space Technol. 15 (2), 187–213.
Corbetta, F., Nguyen-Minh, D., 1992. New methods for rock-support analysis of
tunnels in elastoplastic media. In: Kaiser, P., McCreath Rock Support in Mining
and Underground Construction, pp. 83–90.
Feder, G., 1978. Versuchsergebnisse und analytische Ansatze zum
Scherbruchmechanismus im Bereich tiefliegender Tunnel. Rock Mech. (Suppl.
6), 71–102.
Feder, G., Arwanitakis, M., 1976. Zur Gebirgsmechanik ausbruchsnaher Bereiche
tiefliegender Hohlraumbauten. BHM, J. 121 (4), 103–117.
Fenner, R., 1938. Untersuchungen zur Erkenntnis des Gebirgsdruckes. Verlag
Gluckauf GmbH, Essen, pp. 681–715.
Gesta, P. et al. N/A. Tunnel Support and Lining; A.F.T.E.S Groupe de travail Nr. 7, pp.
206–222 (N/A).
Gschwandtner, G., 2010. Analytical Approaches for the Convergence Confinement
Method. Lehrstuhl für Subsurface Engineering, Montanuniversität Leoben.
Hoek, E., 2007. Practical Rock Engineering. <http://www.rocscience.com/hoek/
PracticalRockEngineering.asp>.
Hoek, E., Brown, E.T., et al., 1983. Ground response curves for rock tunnels. J.
Geotech. Eng. ASCE 109 (1), 15–39.
Itasca Consulting Group, 2006. Flac3D Version 3.1 Manual.
Kainrath-Reumayer, S., Dolsak, W., 2008. Gebirgsanker im Berg- und Tunnelbau.
BHM (Berg- und Hüttenmännische Monatshefte) 153, Jg, H.10.
Kainrath-Reumayer, S., Galler, R., 2008a. Ankerung im Untertagebau – Theorie und
Praxis. Geomechanik und Tunnelbau, pp. 345–351.
Kainrath-Reumayer, S., Galler, R., 2008b. Untersuchungen zur Bemessung von
Ankern. In: Konietzky, H., Klapperich, Geomechanik-Kolloquium, Freiberg. H.
37.
Kainrath-Reumayer, S., Gschwandtner, G., Galler, R., 2009. Das Kennlinienverfahren
als Hilfsmittel fur die Bemessung von tiefliegenden Tunnelbauwerken.
Geomechanik und Tunnelbau, pp. 553–560.
Kastner, H., 1962. Statik des Tunnel- und Stollenbaues. Springer Verlag, Berlin.
Kienberger, G., 1999. Einschaliger Tunnelausbau – Einfluss des zeitabhangigen
Materialverhaltens auf die Ausbaubeanspruchung. Dissertation. Institut fur
Geomechanik, Tunnelbau und Konstruktiven Tiefbau, Montanuniversitat
Leoben.
Oreste, P.P., 2003. A procedure for determining the reaction curve of shotcrete lining
considering transient conditions. Rock Mech. Rock Eng. 36 (39), 209–236.
Pacher, F., 1964. Deformationsmessungen im Versuchsstollen als Mittel zur
Erforschung des Gebirgsverhaltens und zur Bemessung des Ausbaues,
Felsmechanik, pp. 149–161.
Panet, M., Guenot, A., 1982. Analysis of convergence behind the face of a tunnel. In:
Tunnelling 82, Proceedings of the 3rd International Symposium, Brighton, pp.
197–204.
Panet, M., et al., 2001. The Convergence – Confinement Method, AFTES.
Pilgerstorfer, T., Radončić, N., 2009. Prediction of spatial displacement development.
Geomech. Tunnel. 2, 250–259, Geomechanik und Tunnelbau.
Pottler, R., 1990. Time-dependent rock-shotcrete interaction – a numerical shortcut.
Comput. Geotech 9 (3), 149–169.
Radončić, N. et al., 2009. Zur Auslegung duktiler Ausbauten. Geomech. Tunnel. 2,
561–576.
Salencon, J., 1969. Contraction Quasi-Statique D’une Cavite a Symetrie Spherique Ou
Cylindrique Dans Un Milieu Elastoplastique; Annales Des Ponts Et Chaussees,
pp. 231–236.
Schubert, P., 1984. Das Tragvermogen des mortelversetzten Ankers unter
aufgezwungener Kluftverschiebung. Dissertation, Institut fur Geomechanik,
Tunnelbau und Konstruktiven Tiefbau, Montanuniversitat Leoben.
Schubert, P., 1988. Beitrag zum rheologischen Verhalten von Spritzbeton. Felsbau 6
(3), 150–153.
Schubert, W., Golser, J., Schwab, P., 1996. Weiterentwicklung des Ausbaus für stark
druckhaftes Gebirge, Felsbau.
Seeber, G., 1999. Druckstollen und Druckschachte Bemessung – Konstruktion –
Ausfuhrung, ENKE im Georg Thieme Verlag, Stuttgart – New York.
Sharan, S.K., 2008. Analytical solution for stress and displacements around a circular
opening in a generalized Hoek–Brown rock. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 45, 78–
85.
Spang, K., 1988. Beitrag zur rechnerischen Berücksichtigung vollvermörtelter Anker
bei der Sicherung von Felsbauwerken in geschichtetem oder geklüfteten
Gebirge. Dissertation, Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne.
Sulem, J., Panet, M., Guenot, A., 1987. An analytical solution for time-dependent
displacements in a circular tunnel. Int. J. Rock Mech. Mining Sci. Geomech. 24,
155–164. Abstract.
Unlu, T., Gercek, H., 2003. Effect of Poissońs ratio on the normalized radial
displacements occurring around the face of a circular tunnel. Tunnel. Undergr.
Space Technol. 18, 547–553.
Vlachopoulos, N., Diederichs, M.S., 2009. Improved longitudinal displacement
profiles for convergence confinement analysis of deep tunnel. Rock Mech.
Rock Eng. 42, 131–146.