Technolgy

Journal Title: Journal of the Geotechnical Call #: Journal of the Geotechnical

Engineering Division Engineering Division
Volume: 105 Skeen Library Garden
Location: NMT
Issue:
Month/Year: 1979
Level (Basement) - Periodicals
Pages: 499-518
& Item #:

Min g Deliv ry Article Author: Einstein H. H. and Schwartz

Article Title: Simplified analysis of tunnel

of =- supports

Instiue Document
- Imprint: CUSTOMER HAS REQUESTED:
Mail to Address

n Ali Fakhimi (hamed)

© 801 Leroy PI

Mexico
ID
o Department of Mineral Engineering
<0 Socorro, NM 87801

-U

New
TO
 14541 APRIL 1979 GT4

JOURNAL OF THE
GEOTECHNICAL
ENGINEERING DIVISION

SIMPLIFIED ANALYSIS FOR TUNNEL SUPPORTS

By Herbert H. Einstein,1 M. ASCE and Charles W. Schwartz,2 A. M. ASCE

INTRODUCTION

A significant number of empirical and analytical methods for the design of

tunnel supports are readily available today. Many of the more sophisticated
analytical methods, such as finite element analysis, can handle ground and support
characteristics of great complexity, provided the appropriate input information
is available. Empirical methods, on the other hand, bypass this need for accurate
and detailed input information by directly relating the support requirements
to easily measured ground properties or to qualitative geologic descriptions;
however, this approach usually results in a substantial and indeterminable amount
of overdesign. Both approaches have applications to which they are best suited,
but there exists a definite need for a third type in which limited quantitative
data could be interpreted quickly and simply within a rational analytical frame¬
work. These simpler analytical methods would supplement the empirical design
methods when more detailed geotechnical information is available and would
permit the designer to rapidly investigate a range of possible support alternatives.
They could, for example, incorporate information obtained from the exploration
program into the design for the initial supports and the preliminary design of
the final supports; more importantly, these methods could aid in the evaluation
of monitoring measurements and adaptation of the initial supports during
construction.
For these purposes the simplified analytical methods must satisfy three criteria:
(1) They must be simple to use, e.g., geared toward pocket calculators or a
combination of design charts or tables and pocket calculators; (2) they must
be able to model the effects of the most significant ground and support
characteristics (ground material properties, stress field, support geometry, and
support material properties); and (3) they must correctly model the loading
—
Note. Discussion open until September 1, 1979. To extend the closing date one month,
a written request must be filed with the Editor of Technical Publications, ASCE. This
paper is part of the copyrighted Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division,
Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 105, No. GT4, April, 1979.
Manuscript was submitted for review for possible publication on July 13, 1978.
'Assoc. Prof., Massachusetts Inst, of Tech., Cambridge, Mass.
2Grad. Research Asst., Massachusetts Inst, of Tech., Cambridge, Mass.
499
w
 W
500 APRIL 1979 GT*
conditions and the ground-structure interaction around the tunnel.
In this paper, a solution that satisfies many of these requirements and
incorporates the correct loading condition for mined tunnels is developed. This
solution is applied to a range of ground and support cases to show the effects
of the major variables. Comparisons between this solution and other solutions
in the literature are also made. Finally, practical implications are considered
and the further development of simple analytical methods for tunnel support
design is outlined.

RELATIVE STIFFNESS SOLUTION

—
Principle. The behavior of a tunnel support in the ground is a typical
ground-structure interaction problem. A tunnel support under the influence of
the in-situ ground stresses will contract and change its shape; these support
deformations will in turn affect the behavior of the ground. The uniform'
contraction and shape change of the support depend, to a large extent, on

—
FIG. 1. Characteristic Curves

the relative stiffnesses of the support and the ground.

Characteristic curves [an old engineering tool that had been extensively used
around the beginning of the century and has been reintroduced in tunneling
by Rabcewicz (13), Peck (11), and Lombardi (8), see Fig. 1] show very clearly
the effect of different ground and support stiffnesses on the behavior of the
tunnel support: the stiffer the support is relative to the ground, the greater
will be the support load. The effects of stiffness on shape changes of the support
can readily be seen in the two limiting cases (11); an ideally flexible support
in a nonuniform stress field will deform until the stresses acting on the support »
are uniform (no bending moment can occur), whereas an ideally rigid support |
will not change its shape and will have to support the original nonuniforffl
stress fields (large bending moments can occur).
In addition to the effects of the relative stiffness, the ground-support behavior
is significantly influenced by the shear stress transmission at the ground-support,
interface. The two extreme conditions at the interface are full slip (no shear|
stress transmission) and no slip (no relative shear displacement).
 GT4 TUNNEL-SUPPORT ANALYSIS 501
—
Development of Original Relative Stiffness Solution. The original relative
stiffness solution was developed by Bums and Richard (2) for buried culverts
under one-dimensional (quasistatic) blast overloads. Similar ideas have been
formulated by others in the literature (4,5,7,10,12,15,18). Bums and Richard’s
solution is applicable to elastically lined cylindrical openings under plane strain
conditions in a linearly elastic ground mass. The derivation considers both full-slip
and no-slip conditions at the ground-support interface; however, the lateral

—
; free-field ground stresses are restricted to a fixed function of the vertical stresses
and Poisson’s ratio [i.e., a h = v/{\ v) cr J . Hoeg (7) later relaxed this
constraint on the lateral stresses. Finite element studies have shown that variations
of stress with depth are not important at depths of more than one tunnel diameter
below the surface (5,9,12).
The more restrictive assumption in the relative stiffness solution is that of
plane strain. Although this assumption may be appropriate at locations far from
the face of the tunnel, the actual conditions near the face are more complicated
(14,16).
If these assumptions are considered in the design, relative stiffness solutions
can provide a practical approach. When applied to tunneling problems, however,
an important disadvantage of the original relative stiffness solution is the
assumption of a surface overpressure loading condition. This “external loading”
1 condition implies that the tunnel opening has been excavated and supported

before the load corresponding to the free-field stresses is applied. While this
loading condition is correct for backfilled culverts and for tunnels subjected
to blast overloads, it does not adequately represent the actual “excavation
unloading” condition that occurs during tunneling. In this case, the tunnel opening
is excavated and supported after the load corresponding to the free-field stresses
has been applied. The assumption of external loading instead of excavation
unloading may lead to support forces that are 50%-100% too conservative (9).
This leads to overdesign that is unacceptable even for initial supports and the

—
preliminary design of final supports.
Relative Stiffness Solution for Excavation Unloading Conditions. The derivation
follows the original logic of Bums and Richard (2). The ground mass is postulated
to be an infinite, elastic, homogeneous, isotropic medium with an initial vertical
stress, P, equal to the vertical ground stress at the center line of the tunnel
and an initial horizontal stress KP. The tunnel support is treated as an elastic
thick-walled shell in which both flexural and circumferential deformations are
considered. The notation used in the solution is shown in Fig. 2.
The relative stiffness of the ground mass to the tunnel support is incorporated
into the solution through the use of two dimensionless parameters, the compress¬
ibility and flexibility ratios. The compressibility ratio, C*, is defined as

t ER(1 - iÿ)
C* = (1)
E,A,{\ -v2)
in which E, v and Es, vs = the elastic constants for the ground and support;
A,= the average cross-sectional area of the support per unit length of tunnel;
and R = the tunnel radius. The compressibility ratio is a measure of the relative
stiffness of the ground-support system under a uniform or symmetric loading
condition
coi [horizontal ground stress equal to the vertical ground stress in the
[
 1
502 APRIL 1979 GU
free field
system.
— see Fig. 3(a)], i.e., it reflects the circumferential stiffness of the

KP

—
FIG. 2. Notation for Revised Relative Stiffness Solution: (a) Ground Medium;
Tunnel Liner
W

1i
E , Eg - Elastic moduli for
ground ond
support
, V, V% -Poisson's ratios for
P ground and
support

tit! • Cross-sectional area

p of support per unit
length of tunnel

E, *s
AD/D AD/0

ER(l-l{l
C* • Compressibility Ratio ■
E,At(l -V2)

_ — P

—
l_Ll L_L_ p
J I, ■ Moment of inertia
p r\
r vv
of #uPport P*r unit

11 l 1 f
1 L P LL
__P
AD/D
E
“(l-lt2)
P Eg I,
AD/D “(l-lf)R*
P

P* • Flexibility Ratio - £,1,0-1/*)

—
FIG. 3. Dimensionless Stiffness Ratios for Tunnel Supports

The flexibility ratio, F*9 is similarly defined as

F* = E.I.(\ 0)
-v‘)
in which Is = the moment of inertia of the tunnel support per unit
GT4 TUNNEL-SUPPORT ANALYSIS 503
0f tunnel. The flexibility ratio is a measure of the relative stiffness of the
ground-support system under an antisymmetric loading condition [horizontal
ground stress equal to but of opposite sign of the vertical ground stress in
the free field —see Fig. 3(h)] , i.e., it reflects the flexural stiffness of the system.
(Details and review of the derivation of both stiffness parameters, which are
tjifferent from those used in the other solutions in the literature, are given
in Appendix I.)
The derivation of the revised relative stiffness solution follows three basic
steps:

1. Derive the initial displacement field in the ground mass due to the in-situ
stresses.
2. Derive the total stress and incremental displacement fields in the ground
mass after excavation and the contact stresses at the ground-support interface.
The incremental displacement field is the displacement field for a circular hole
in the ground under an external loading condition minus the displacements due
to in-situ stresses. The full-slip or no-slip boundary conditions at the ground
support interface are also considered in Step 2 and lead to two different solutions.
3. Compute the internal support forces induced by the contact stresses at
the ground-support interface. Details of the derivation for each of the three
steps are given in the following.

—
Step 1: Derivation of Initial Displacement Field in Ground Mass Due to In-Situ
Stresses. The stresses existing in the ground before tunneling are given as
(see Fig. 2 for notation)

—2 [(1 + K)- (1 - tf) cos 26]

P
a, = (3a)
in terms of principal
— P
2
[(1 + K) + (1 - AT) cos 20] stresses (3b)

=—
P
T,„ (1 - AT) sin 20 (3c)
2
and the stress-strain-displacement relations in polar coordinates are

*,=
du
-
dr
= —
1
E
,
[(1 - v )o, - v(l + v)o8] Plain strain (4a)

= —ur +-= — dv
E
rd6
1
[(1 - v )cr„ - v (1 + v)crr] (4b)

Substituting Eqs. 3 into Eqs. 4 and integrating yields the expressions for the
initial ground displacements, u, and v,:
Pr(1 + v)
u, = -
IE
[(1 - 2v )(1 + K) - (1 - K) cos 20 ] (5)

v, =-(1
Pr(l + v)
— K) sin 20 (6)
504 APRIL 1979 GT4ff
Step 2: Derivation of Stress and Incremental Displacement Fields in Grounds
after Excavation and Contact Stresses at Ground-Support Interface. —The stresses
in the ground mass can be expressed in terms of a stress function, 4> , as

Chapter 4 - Two-dimensional
problems in polar coordinates

Derived for circular rings, disk,

and curved bars.
in which <b in this case is Michell’s generalized stress function (see Ref. 17,
p. 133). This generalized stress function can be simplified, however, by imposing .
the symmetry and periodicity requirements of the stress field and the stress
boundary conditions at infinity (or,, CT6 , and Trfj must approach the in-situ stresses
as r approaches infinity). After satisfying these restrictions:

<t> = a0 In (r) + — Pr\\ + K) + a'0Q + —4 Pr2(\ - AT) cos 20

4

+ (n'r ” + b'„r "+2) cos (/20) (8)

«= 2,4,6

Using Eqs. 4, 7, and 8, the stresses and displacements in the ground mass

--
can be expressed as
. 1 1
= a0r~2 + — P(1 + K) P(1 - K) cos 20

......
<jr
2 2

+ [(— n2 — n)a'nr " 2

+ (— n2 — n + 2)b'„r “"] cos («0) (9a)

1 1
+ — .P(l + A) + —2 P( 1 - K) cos 20
2
CT„ = -a„r
2

+ [— n(—n — l)aÿr ~"~2 + (—n +!)(—« + 2) b'„r “”] cos («0 ) . . . (9b)

T,8 = a>”2 + —2 P(1 - K) sin 20

GT4 TUNNEL-SUPPORT ANALYSIS 505

- vPr(l + K) - v 4b'„r~n+l cos (nO) | (10a)

■{ — Pr(1 — K) sin 20
1+ v f 1
v= -
E [2

+ X -v)b'nr-"+l] sin(«0)| (10b)

The displacements given in Eqs. 10 correspond to the combined ground movements

from both the initial ground stresses and the stress redistribution induced by
the excavated circular opening. However, the movements due to the initial
ground stresses occur before the tunnel is excavated and do not directly affect
the ground-support interaction. These initial displacements, given in Eqs. 5 and
6, must therefore be subtracted from Eqs. 10 to obtain the incremental displace¬
ment field that corresponds to the excavation unloading condition for tunnels.
These incremental displacements are

“=—
1-ÿ"'+ \-na'"r~n~'
n =2,4, 6

+ (« + 2 - 4v)b>~"+1] cos

v = ———
E
(n0)j
|L»-2.4,6 [na'nr~" ' - 4(1 - v)b'„r“”+1] sin(n0)lJ .......
(11a)

(lib)

At this point, the boundary conditions at the ground-support interface must

be introduced. At r = R (see Fig. 3):

Full slip: a r =aR (12a)

T,e =0 (12ft)

«=!/, (12c)

No slip: ar = <jR (13a)

T'8 = T/te (13b)

“=«, (13c)
v= (13<0
The stress-displacement relations for the support [e.g., see Fliigge (6)], must
also be considered at this point:

--
d\s
d0
~ + —
du
d6
- = --
Dc
R1
•>-*„ (14a)

d9
+ u, H--DF (dAus
-I --
DCR2 \ <f04 — — J2u,
1-2--
dO2
I-
/ —Dc
a.\ = - a„
R2
(14b)
506 APRIL 1979

in which Z) =
1 - v?

.....
1 -v

oR =

=0
—
1
2
i»(1 + tf)(l - a*)
--
Combining Eqs. 9, 11, 12, and 14 for the full-slip case yields the contact stress
1
2

and the support displacements (in dimensionless form):

F(1 - /C)(3 - 6a*) cos 20
I
(15af
(15ZA

usE
- =
PflO+v)
—
2
1
(1 + K)a%- (1 - AT) [(5 - 6 V)at - (1 - v)] cos 20 . . (16a

vsE
- =
PR(1 + v) —
2
1
(1 - K)[(S -6v)a*- (1 - v)] sin 20 (16Z

C*F*(I - v)
in which a* = ■

C* + F* + C*.F*(1 -v )
(F* + 6)(l -v)
= (176f
a\
2F*(1 — v) + 6(5 - 6v) I
Eqs|

--
in which C* and F* are given in Eqs. 1 and 2. Similarly, combining
9, 11, 13, and 14 for the no-slip case yields the contact stresses:

<Tÿ =— i
F(1 + tf)(l -a?)
i
P(1 - *0(1 -6a* + 46*) cos 20 ...
!
(18a|-;f
2 2

=—
1
TRB P(1 - 6f)(l + 6a * - 26*) sin 20 (186V
2
and the support displacements (again in dimensionless form):
U'E
PR(\ + v)
;
—1
2
(1 + K)a* + —2 (1 - tf)[4(l -v)b* - 2a*] cos 20 . .
1
(19a)

v.E
= -(1 - 6f)[a* + (l -2v)6*] sin 20
PR(1 + v)
C*F*(1 - v)
in which a* =
C* + F* + C*F*(1 — v)
(6 + F*)C*(1 - v) + 2F*v
P=
3 F* + 3C* + 2C*F*(1 -v )
C*(l -v)
(20 c)
2[C*(1 -v) + 4v - 6(3 - 3PC*(1 -v)]
GT4 TUNNEL-SUPPORT ANALYSIS 507
a\ = Pb* (20 d)
where C* and F* are given in Eqs. 1 and 2.
Step 3: Compute Internal Support Forces Induced by Contact Stresses at
—
Ground-Support Interface. The differential equations for the axial thrust, T,
and moment, M, in the tunnel support under plane strain conditions are (6)

R ---
dT
dQ
—
dM
dQ
= -R21, (21 a)

RT + (21 b)
dr
Substituting the expressions for <x„ and TSO derived in Step 2, solving the
differential equations simultaneously, and expressing the results in dimensionless
form, the support forces for the full-slip case are

—21 (1 + Jf)(l -a*) + —2 (1 + AT)(1 - 2a*) cos 20

T 1
—= (22 a)
PR
_
M 1
= -(!_ /CXi -2aJ) cos 26 (22 b)
PR2 2
in which a* and aj are given in Eqs. 17. Similarly for the no-slip case:

—=—
T
PR
1
2
(1 + AT)(1 - a*) + —2
1
(1 - Zf )(1 + 2a*) cos 20 (23 a)

—
PR2 = —
M
-
1
A
(1 - AT)(1 - 2a*+ 2h*)cos20 (23 b)

in which a*, aj, and are given in Eqs. 20.

This revised relative stiffness solution can be readily programmed on a pocket
calculator or expressed in the form of design charts, as shown in the next
section.

APPLICATION OF RELATIVE STIFFNESS SOLUTION TO TYPICAL GROUND AND SUPPORT

CHARACTERISTICS

The purpose of this section is to provide the reader with values of thrust,
moment, and displacement for ground and support characteristics that are typical
of soft-ground and hard-rock tunnels. At the same time, it will be possible
to consider the effect of the different loading conditions and of the different
support types and dimensions. The figures and accompanying comments presented
in this section can provide a readily applicable design tool. However, it must
be emphasized here that for the purposes of design the restrictive assumptions
underlying the derivation must be kept in mind. The solution should be used
to bracket the expected tunneling conditions and to examine the sensitivity
of the analysis to variations in the design parameters.
—
Ground and Support Parameters. As shown in Figs. 4-8 the following
parameters were varied to investigate the effect of ground and support charac-
508 APRIL 1979

line
Nop
8p

—
Tunel
et

Coeficnt
Thrust
Sup ort
4.

FIG.
 GT4 TUNNEL-SUPPORT ANALYSIS 509
teristics on normalized support thrust T/ PR, moment M/ PR2, and displacement |i
usE/PR( 1 + v): relative stiffness (E/Es = 10-4 to 1; t/R = 0.01 to 0.75,
j = average support thickness corresponding to C* s= 0.001 to 100.0, F* =

2.0 to 12,000,000); ratio of lateral to vertical stress (K = 0.0 to 4.0); boundary

conditions at the support-ground interface (no slip and full slip); loading conditions j;j
(excavation unloading versus external loading). j!
In Figs. 4-8, the following key is used to identify each of the four relative
stiffness solutions: L/NS = external loading condition, no slip at ground-support
interface (7); L/S = external loading, full slip (12); U/NS = excavation unloading
condition, no slip at ground-support interface (revised solution); and U / S =
excavation unloading, full slip (revised solution).

HiMI«MuniB
»«

lUuaIion
—
uodnq
■＊，

ni4

<
—
FIG. 5. Support Moment Coefficient at Tunnel Springline

Although the ground and support parameters can be in the entire range
mentioned previously and shown in Figs. 4-8, most practical combinations of
the parameters will occur in more limited ranges. Representative ranges of E / E s
i
f —
— —
are: steel or cast iron supports in soft ground 10 4 to 10“3 ; concrete supports
in soft ground 10-3 to 10-2; steel supports in rock 10 2 to 1 0_ 1 ; and concrete
—
supports in rock 10"2 to 1. The range of the thickness ratio, t/R, can be
considered to represent: (1) Prefabricated concrete or cast-iron elements and
cast-in-place concrete liners in small to medium diameter tunnels (10 ft-20 ft)
at the high end ( t/R = 0.075); (2) Cast-in-place concrete in medium to large
diameter tunnels (20 ft-30 ft) in the middle (t/R = 0.05); and (3) Fabricated
steel liner plates or steel sets in a wide range of tunnel diameters (10 ft-30

t
 Springl e
Tun el
at

Coeficnt
Displacemnt
Sup ort

00
 GT4 TUNNEL-SUPPORT ANALYSIS 511
ft) in the low ranges (t/R = 0.025 and 0.01). Shotcrete in medium to large
diameter tunnels would also fall in this last category. It should be emphasized
at this point that it is not necessary to work with the assumption (on which
the curves in Figs. 4-8 are based) of a uniformly thick support; the relative
stiffness solutions can treat any cross-sectional shape of the .support. However,

i
liIS
(j

. FIG. 7.—Thrust, Moment, and

Different Support Shapes
Displacement Coefficients at Tunnel Springline for

% ason shown in Fig. 7, varying the cross-sectional shape has only a moderate effect
i the support behavior.
a —
Analysis of Results. The first part of this analysis will consider the effects
of all parameter variations for the excavation unloading condition only, while
I the second part will be devoted to a comparison of these results with those
512 APRIL 1979
obtained using the external loading condition in the original relative stiffnei
solution.
—
Effects of Relative Stiffness and Stress Ratio K. The results of varying thi
relative stiffnesses of the support and the ground are presented in Figs
Increasing the relative stiffness of the support by decreasing E/Es or increasi
t/ R increases the support thrust and moment. This is intuitively expected sim
stiffer supports contribute more resistance to the combined ground-support sy:
tem. Also unsurprising is the result that very flexible supports are not subjei
to any moments; as indicated by the values for E/ Es and t/R shown in the5
figures, this condition will occur in most rock tunnels. The effect of the relative!
support stiffness on the support displacements is somewhat more complex,

FIG. 8. — Effect of Lateral Stress Ratio on Support Thrust, Moment, and Displacement

however. At very low support stiffnesses (E / E s S 0.1) the tunnel is essentially

unsupported and the net displacements are inward (positive). As the relative
support stiffness increases (E / E t decreases), the support begins to pick up
load and resist the inward ground movement. “Ovalling” of the support will |
also occur when K f 1 [see also Peck (11)] ; for the K = 0.5 conditions depicted i

in Fig. 6, the support forms a lying ellipse and the net springline displacements1 >

are outward (negative) when C* =S 2.0. Further support stiffness increases are
accompanied by increased bending stiffness, which eventually restrains some
of the “ovalling” of the support. Finally, for an ideally rigid support no
displacements and maximum thrust and moment occur.
 GT4 TUNNEL-SUPPORT ANALYSIS 513
The effects of the relative stiffness variations confirm statements made in
the literature by Peck (11) and intuitive predictions, particularly in the extreme
cases of ideally flexible and ideally rigid supports. It is important to note that
most practical tunnels in soil will fall into the high thrust and medium-to-high
moment ranges while rock tunnels will usually lie in the medium thrust and
low moment ranges, based on the representative stiffness values covered in
the previous section. One has to remember, however, that the supports considered
here are continuous and that articulation (as would occur with some segmented
supports) will change the practical implications.
Poisson’s ratio, which also influences relative stiffness, was found to have
only a slight effect on the support forces and displacements.
Fig. 8 shows the effect of varying the stress ratio K. As expected, for K
= 1 the thrust is equal to the hoop load, and no moments occur. As K increases,
the springline thrust decreases and the moments and negative springline displace¬
ments (expansion) increase for the relatively stiff supports compared in the
figure. The opposite behavior occurs for K > 1. Interestingly, both the full-slip

—
TABLE 1 . Springline Thrust and Moment Coefficients for Perfectly Rigid Support,
C* = F* = 0

V = 0.10 V
— 0.25 v = 0.48
„

Solution T / (PR ) M / (PR1) T / (PR ) M / (PR1) T/(PR) M /(PR2)

(D (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) m
Excavation unloading,
full slip 0.898 0.148 0.893 0.143 0.877 0.127
Excavation unloading,
no slip 1.00 0.125 1.00 0.125 1.00 0.125
External loading, full slip 1.55 0.205 1.34 0.214 1.03 0.245
External loading, no slip 1.70 0.173 1.50 0.188 1.26 0.241

and no-slip conditions produce practically the same moments and displacements
over the entire range of K values; however, the thrust in the full-slip case
deviates considerably from that in the no-slip case in which the thrust is
I approximately constant for the entire K range. In the no-slip case there is
I a significant transfer of shear stresses from the ground to the support that
I results in a quasiuniform state as far as thrust in the support is concerned.
‘ Practically, this implies that the thrust in shotcrete supports that are interlocked
y

j with the ground (e.g., blasted rock tunnels) is not significantly influenced by
e I the in-situ stress conditions.
“

—
P

,
Effects of Loading Conditions. All of the results of the relative stiffness
solutions that have been presented in Figs. 4-6 show clearly that external loading
i conditions yield design parameters that are 50%-100% less favorable than those
s
t for excavation unloading. Table 1 shows the results from the relative stiffness
solutions for ideally rigid supports. The external loading condition is always
more severe. In addition, the differences between no-slip and full-slip boundary
8 6

conditions are greater in the external loading case. This is due to the fact that
more load is transferred to the support in the external loading case and thus
5
514 APRIL 1979
the no-slip boundary condition, which “attracts” more load to the support,
has a greater effect.

Practical Considerations in Application of Relative Stiffness Solutions

£
1 . The relative stiffness solutions can model either external loading or excava¬
tion unloading conditions. The former case is representative of culverts or of
tunnels under one-dimensional blast loads, while the latter is the usual case
for tunnels excavated and supported under ground. The two types of solution
can yield differences in design parameters (support thrust, moment, and displace¬
ment) of up to nearly 100%.
2. The relative stiffness solutions assumes that the support is installed simulta¬
neously with the excavation. As shown by the writers (16) and others (3,14),
substantial ground displacements occur before the support is erected and therefore
the load on the support can differ significantly from that predicted assuming
simultaneous excavation and support installation. Similarly, one should remembif
that the assumption of plane strain in the relative stiffness solutions somewhat:
contradicts the assumption of simultaneous excavation and support installation;
this simultaneous excavation and support could practically only take place directly
at the face where the plane strain assumption is invalid.
3. The limitations mentioned in the previous paragraph, as well as the basic
restrictive assumption of linear elasticity, are not disadvantageous if the relative!
stiffness solutions are used appropriately. The relative stiffness solutions sho«#
clearly how the design parameters for tunnel supports change with variation!
of the ground and support characteristics and indicate the ranges over which
these characteristics have an important effect on the design. The designer can
thus determine which particular ground and support characteristics his design
is insensitive to, which characteristics need to be explored and established in
more detail, and whether it is best to monitor the tunnel performance and possibly
adapt the design during construction. In other words, the relative stiffness
solutions are well suited to preliminary design (especially of adaptable supports)
and to the design adaptation during construction.

CONCLUSIONS AND POTENTIAL FOR FURTHER DEVELOPMENT

The interpretation and analysis of the real ground behavior around a tunnel
requires considerable judgment on the part of the tunnel designer. Relative
stiffness solutions can complement this judgment and fill the gap between
sophisticated analytical methods and empirical methods for tunnel support design.
1

These solutions permit the rapid and inexpensive investigation of a range of

possible support alternatives, and they supplement existing empirical methods
for initial support design, thus reducing some of their implicit overdesign. These
solutions are particularly well suited to the quantitative evaluation of the initial
support performance during construction; they can also be used for the preliminary
design of final supports. The use of these relatively simple analytical method
requires nothing more than programmable pocket calculators or design chatf*
such as the ones shown in this paper. It should be emphasized, however, that
the proper loading condition must be assumed; the external loading conditio*
used in previous solutions is not correct for mined tunnels and can lead tfl
 GT4 TUNNEL-SUPPORT ANALYSIS 515
4
considerable errors in tunnel support design. One must furthermore recognize
the limits inherent in any plane strain representation of the ground support
interaction around a tunnel and make some allowances for the actual behavior
at the tunnel face.
Finally, one can see the potential for the further development of relative
stiffness solutions. By using these solutions as “basic” solutions and by deriving
i-
correction factors for effects that are not considered in these basic solutions,
if
an even more useful design tool can be developed.
e
n
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The work on which this paper is based is part of the research on improved
i-
tunnel design and construction sponsored by the United States Department of
I,
Transportation (DOT) under contracts No. DOT-OS-60136 and DOT-TSC-1489.
e
This support and the assistance provided by the responsible personnel at DOT,
g
R. K. McFarland, G. L. Butler, and L. Silva, is gratefully acknowledged.
tt
it
i;
y
APPENDIX I.
— DERIVATION OF DIMENSIONLESS STIFFNESS RATIOS

The compressibility ratio, C*, is a measure of the relative diametral stiffnesses

c of the ground and the support under a symmetric or uniform loading condition
(horizontal ground stresses equal to the vertical ground stresses in the free
'<!
RI field). The diametral stiffness of the ground is expressed as [see Fig. 3(a)] :
is ■

P E
h -=-T (24)
AD 2(1 -v2)
D
ID
y and for the support:
>s P ESAS
5) _ (25)
AD (1 - v])R
D
The compressibility ratio is then defined as:
el
le
m E
n. 1 - v2 ER(1 -v,2)
af C*
Is ESA , -v2)
se (1 -»])*ÿ
al
ry
as in which the factor of 2 in the denominator of Eq. 24 has been dropped for
ts
at convenience since C * is used only as an index parameter.
JO The flexibility ratio, F*, is a measure of the relative diametral stiffnesses
to of the ground and the support under an antisymmetric loading condition (horizontal
516 APRIL 1979 GT4
ground stress equal to but of opposite sign of the vertical ground stress in
the free field). The diametral stiffness of the ground for this loading conditioa
is [see Fig. 3(h)] :
P E
(27)
AD 4(1 -v2)
D
and for the support:
P _ 6E,I,
(28)
A D_ (l-v2)*3
D
The flexibility ratio is then defined as:

E
1 - v2 ER 3(1 — v2) (29)
EJs ~E,I.{1 -v2)
(1 -v2)*3

in which, again, since F* will be used only as an index parameter, the factors
of 4 and 6 in Eqs. 27 and 28 have been dropped.
Note here that the compressibility and flexibility ratios defined in Eqs. 26
and 29 are slightly different from those used by Bums and Richard (2), Hoeg
(7), and Peck, et al. (12). In their solutions, the calculation of the ground stiffness
was based on the unperforated ground mass existing before the tunnel was
excavated. While this assumption has only a slight effect on the flexibility ratio,
it has a misleadingly extreme effect on the compressibility ratio. The diametral
stiffness of the ground mass under a uniform stress condition for the unperforated
ground case is
P E
(30)
A£> (1 + v)(l - 2v)
"zT
The diametral support stiffness remains unchanged (Eq. 25), and the compress¬
ibility ratio, C, for the unperforated ground case is

ER(l-vl)
ESA ,(1 + v)(l — 2v )
The differences between the expressions for C* (Eq. 26) and C (Eq. 31)
are the terms in the denominator involving Poisson’s ratio v for the ground
mass. As v approaches 0.5 (which might be realistic for a tunnel in undrained ,s
soft clay), the compressibility ratio, C, based on the unperforated ground mass,
 GT4 TUNNEL-SUPPORT ANALYSIS 517
tends toward infinity. From a conceptual viewpoint, an infinite compressibility
ratio should correspond to zero support thrust. A large compressibility ratio
implies that the ground is much stiffer than the support and that the support
is therefore “attracting” little load. But the support thrust for the case of v
= 0.5 does not tend toward zero, both in reality and as predicted by the relative
stiffness solutions; thus the expression for C in Eq. 31 is misleading.
The compressibility ratio, C* (Eq. 3), based on the perforated ground mass,
better relates the support load to the relative support stiffness for all values
of v . In addition, it is conceptually more correct because it relates the stiffness
of the support to the stiffness of the load-carrying component of the ground
. (the ground outside the tunnel). Therefore, a perforated ground mass has been
assumed in the derivation of C* (and F*, for consistency) in the revised relative
stiffness solution. The ratios C* and F* in the revised solution are related
to the ratios C and F in the original relative stiffness solution by

(32)

(33)

APPENDIX II.— REFERENCES

I. Baudendistel, M., “Interaction of Rock and Tunnel Lining,” Proceedings, Symposium

on Rock Mechanics and Tunneling Problems, Kurukshetra, India, Vol. 1, 1973, pp.
1-11.
2. Burns, J. Q., and Richard, R. M., “Attenuation of Stresses for Buried Cylinders,”
Proceedings, Symposium on Soil-Structure Interaction, Tucson, Ariz., 1964, pp.
378-392.
3. Daemen, J. J. K., and Fairhurst, C., “Rock Failure and Tunnel Support Loading,”
Proceedings, International Symposium on Underground Openings, Lucerne, Switzer¬
land, 1972, pp. 356-369.
4. Dar, S. M., and Bates, R. C., “Stress Analysis of Hollow Cylindrical Inclusions,”
1
Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol. 100, No. GT2, Proc.
Paper 10897, Feb., 1974, pp. 123-138.
5. Duns, C. S., and Butterfield, R., “Flexible Buried Cylinders,” International Journal
of Rock Mechanics and Mining Science, Vol. 8, No. 6, Nov., 1971, pp. 577-627.
6. Fliigge, W., Stresses in Shells, Springer-Verlag, Inc., New York, N.Y., 1966.
7. Hoeg, K., “Stresses Against Underground Structural Cylinders,” Journal of the Soil
Mechanics and Foundations Division, ASCE, Vol. 94, No. SM4, Proc. Paper 6022,
Apr., 1968, pp. 833-858.
8. Lombardi, G., “Dimensioning of Tunnel Linings with Regard to Construction Proce¬
dures,” Tunnels and Tunneling, Vol. 5, No. 4, July-Aug., 1973, pp. 340-351.
9. Mohraz, B., et al., “Liner-Medium Interaction in Tunnels,” Journal of the Construction
Division, ASCE, Vol. 101, No. COl, Proc. Paper 11174, Mar., 1975, pp. 127-141.
10. Muir Wood, A. M., “The Circular Tunnel in Elastic Ground,” Geotechnique, London,
England, Vol. 25, No. 1, Mar., 1975, pp. 115-127.
U. Peck, R. B., “Deep Excavations and Tunneling in Soft Ground,” Proceedings, Seventh
International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Mexico
City, Mexico, State-of-the-Art Vol., 1969. pp. 225-290.
12. Peck, R. B., Hendron, A. J., Jr., and Mohraz, B., “State of the Art of Soft Ground
Tunneling,” Proceedings, First Rapid Excavation and Tunneling Conference, American
Institute of Mining, Metallurgical, and Petroleum Engineers, Vol. 1, 1972, pp. 259-286.
13. Rabcewicz, L., “Principles of Dimensioning the Support System for the New Austrian
518 APRIL 1979 GT4
Tunneling Method,” Water Power, Vol. 25, No. 3, Mar., 1973, pp. 88-93.
14. Ranken, R. E., and Ghaboussi, J., “Tunnel Design Considerations: Analysis of Stresses
and Displacements Around Advancing Tunnels,” Report No . FRA-ORD 75-84, Federal
Railroad Administration, United States Department of Transportation, Washington*
D.C., Aug., 1975.
15. Schmid, H., “Static Problems of Tunnel and Pressure Tunnel Construction and Their
Reciprocal Relation,” Technical Memo No. 262, English translation by C. Voetsch,
United States Bureau of Reclamation, Denver, Colo., 1931.
16. Schwartz, C. W., and Einstein, H. H., “Improvement of Ground-Support Performance
by Full Consideration of Ground Displacements,” Transportation Research Record,
No. 684, 1978.
17. Timoshenko, S. P., and Goodier, J. N., Theory of Elasticity, 3rd ed., McGraw-Hill
Book Co., Inc., New York, N.Y., 1934.
18. Voellmy, A., “Eingebettete Rohre,” Mitteilung des Institutesfiir Baustatik, Eidgenoes-
sische Technische Hochschule, Zurich, Switzerland, No. 9, 1937 (in German).