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

net/publication/303553027

Geotechnical design of underground structures

Conference Paper · January 2003

CITATIONS READS
4 2,206

1 author:

Miroslav Marence
IHE Delft Institute for Water Education
58 PUBLICATIONS   123 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

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

Hydropower development View project

Master's degree View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Miroslav Marence on 30 May 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Geotechnical design of underground structures

M. Marence
Verbundplan GmbH, Salzburg, Austria

Abstract

Geotechnical design represents an essential part of underground structure designs in all of the project
phases from conception study to detail design, but also during construction. The geotechnical design
characterises a sum of all design activities and supplementary works resulting in safe, stable and
economically optimal design, utilising the geotechnical conditions found “on site”. During the
construction phase, designed excavation method and selected support system are verified and
optimally adapted to local conditions. Design process starts with the definition of homogeneous
regions with similar geological and geotechnical characteristics, defines as a next step the
characteristic parameters and their predicted interval and/or probability distribution, and finally leads
to the assumption of the possible failure mechanism and definition of the excavation method, advance
rate and support system. The method gives possibility for the continuous and reconstructable design
process, from geological characterisation to structural design and the dimensioning of the structures.
The design process is illustrated by some tunnel projects.

Introduction

Design and construction of underground structures require thought processes and procedures that are
in many ways different from other design and construction projects, because the principal construction
material – a rock mass or a soil itself – is also an engineering material. Uncertainties persist in the
properties of the ground material and in the way the ground and the groundwater will behave. These
uncertainties should be overcome by sound and flexible geotechnical design. The geotechnical design
of each project phase – from concept to detail design and also during construction stage – should be
understandable to all participants and easily adaptable as the project develops.

The goal of the geotechnical design of underground structures is economic optimisation of the
technical solutions by fulfilling safety requirements and utilising the geotechnical conditions “on site”.
The ground characterised by many uncertainties and great scattering of ground behaviour, material
characteristics, state of stress and water conditions has to be steadily improved during the design
process. Together with a composite interaction between ground and structure during the construction
and operation, a complex system has to be understood and its behaviour predicted. This is carried out
by a team of experienced engineers, incorporating their knowledge from many disciplines (US Army
Corps of Eng. 1997):

Engineering geologists plan and carry out geological explorations, interpret all available data to
ascertain tunnelling conditions and define geological features and anomalies that can affect the tunnel
construction. They also participate in the design and assessment of ground support requirements and
initial ground support. During their work they may require the help from other specialists such as geo-
hydrologists.

Geotechnical engineers participate in the design and assessment of ground support requirements,
initial ground support, selection of lining type and basic tunnel alignment.

Structural engineers model and analyse the excavation process, participate in the selection of the
initial and final lining and the design of the lining components.

Civil engineers deal with issues such as construction site location and layout, drainage and muck
disposal, site access, road detours, and relocation of utilities and other facilities. Together with the
surveyor team, civil engineers prepare base maps for planning, select an appropriate coordinate
system, and establish the geometric framework on which all design is based, as well as benchmarks,
criteria, and controls for construction.

UNDERGROUND CONSTRUCTION 2003 563

Aspects of tunnel engineering and design, geology and geotechnical engineering must be considered in
all stages of design and construction. All segments of the work that are part of the complete structures
or serve a function in the completed structure are fully designed by the design team (Marence, 1998).

Geotechnical design – principles

The underground excavation and application of the support system is an interaction between ground
properties and the selected excavation method in a defined period of time. Definition of the ground
properties with its scatter represents a difficult task for the design of each structure in the ground.
During the design period – independent of the design stage – type, characteristics and behaviour of the
ground are only known in points, along a line and/or only on the surface and together with other
unknown factors, such as primary state of stress and groundwater, and can only be estimated by a
characteristic value or by a range of values. Frequently, during the project phases with additional
exploration works, the estimated values have to be changed or adopted. The design method should be
flexible enough to allow these changes.

Geology Laboratory tests Site Investigation

GROUND TYPE DEFINITION

Stress level,
Material Parameters
groundwater and Excavation Method
Failure Mechanism
excavation geometry

GROUND BEHAVIOUR DEFINITION

Selection of
Excavation Phases
and Support System

Numerical Model
Safety Definition
Risk Assessment

DEFINITION OF EXCAVATION
METHOD AND SUPPORT SYSTEM

Figure 1 – Tunnel design flow chart

Geotechnical tunnel design means planning of the underground structure with a purpose to find the
economically optimal and safe structure under the geological and geotechnical conditions found “on-
site” (ÖGG, 2001). This Austrian recommendation deals with a system that gives understandable,
logical and improvable design at each design phase and during execution. The design process starts
with definition of the regions with similar geological characteristics, so-called homogeneous regions.
For these regions the geomechanical significant parameters (key parameters) and their characteristics
are defined. The definition of these parameters is mostly done by geologists, however in cooperation
with geotechnical engineers and is based on all obtainable information collected from the geology “in
situ” and laboratory tests. Such information defines the ground type of the ground unit.

In the second phase the un-oriented geology is put into relation with the orientation and geometry of
the excavation. In this step, also the information of groundwater, primary state of stress and other

UNDERGROUND CONSTRUCTION 2003 564

specific parameters are included the design. Also, qualitative geological and geotechnical information
is transformed into quantitative parameters defined as fixed values or with their scatter. All this
information leads to the definition of the ground behaviour type, which defines ground behaviour
including all important factors and excavation methods without considering the primary support and
excavation phases. The categories of the ground behaviour types defined by ÖGG (2001) are specified
in Table 1.

In the third phase, the primary support system and excavation phases are defined. This phase is an
iterative design process where the selected excavation and support system is proved by applicable
analytical and numerical methods. The defined support systems are summarised in the excavation and
support classes, which gives smooth transition from class to class.

In the last design stage a range of applicability by each class together with decision criteria for class
changing is defined.

Ground behaviour type Description of the ground behaviour (without support)

Stable ground with potential gravity driven falling or sliding blocks

Stable rock mass
or wedges with relatively small dimension

Discontinuity conditional Gravity driven falling or sliding blocks or wedges defined by the
failures intersecting of structural features

Stress dependent plastification and softening in excavation vicinity

Local plastification
in combination with the discontinuity caused instabilities

Deep plastification around the Deep plastification and softening with big deformations –
excavation - squeezing squeezing conditions

Sudden failure caused by high stress concentrations in combination

Rock bursting
with brittle rock mass

Buckling of thin rock layers, frequently in combination with shear

Buckling of layered rock mass
failure

Potential significant failures and progressive shear failures caused

Shear failure in shallow tunnels
by low interlocking stresses

Carted ground Instabilities in cohesion-less, dry to moist ground

Running ground Instabilities of ground with high water

Time dependent volume increase caused by physic-chemical

Swelling ground
reactions in ground and water in combination with stress relaxation
Strong variation of stress field and deformations caused by Block-
Ground with rapid changing of
Matrix structure, such as heterogeneous fault zones and tectonic
properties
melange
Table 1 – Categories of ground behaviour type (ÖGG, 2001)

On site, after each excavation cycle, the geological conditions on face are compared with design
values, the suitability of the designed system is checked and any decision about support class
application is done. In case of over- or under-estimation of the designed support system, the system
can be easily adopted to the actual circumstances.

UNDERGROUND CONSTRUCTION 2003 565

Geotechnical design gives possibility for understandable and comprehensive design with the option of
intervention and adaptation in each project stage, based on the new knowledge, and during the
construction works according to the as found conditions.

Example 1: Blocky rock mass

In tunnels excavated in jointed rock masses at relatively shallow depth, the most common types of
failure are those involving wedges falling from the roof or sliding out of the sidewalls of the openings.
These wedges are formed by intersecting structural features, such as bedding planes and joints, which
separate the rock mass into discrete but interlocked pieces. Excavation of the opening creates a free
face where the restraint from the surrounding rock is removed and one or more of these wedges can
become potentially instable. The potential instable wedge can fall or slide from the surface if the
bounding planes are continuous or rock bridges along the discontinuities are broken. Unless steps are
taken to support these loose wedges, the stability of the opening may deteriorate rapidly. Each wedge,
which is allowed to fall or slide, will cause a reduction in the restraint and the interlocking of the rock
mass and this, in turn, will allow other wedges to fall. This failure process will continue until natural
arching in the rock mass prevents further unravelling or until the opening is full of fallen material.

The design of such problems is concentrated on the discontinuities, bedding planes and joints, and
their characteristics. Geometrically, unstable wedges are defined by opening geometry and dip and dip
direction of the joint systems. Thus, the geometry: size, shape and strike of opening is mostly constant
for the defined region, the joint systems are not constant and influenced by their scatter. For each
significant set of discontinuities geometric characteristics – dip-angle and dip-direction – should be
defined by statistical interpretation of “on site” determined values. The strength characteristics of the
discontinuity set are different dependent on the type of the contact between the surrounding blocks. In
case of intimate contact the strength can be optimally defined by Barton strength low (Barton et al,
1976) or in case of filled and partly open joints the characteristics of the fill material are decisive.
Together with the geometry, cross section, trend and plunge of excavation, the potential instable
wedges in the rock mass surrounding the opening can be defined. These can be performed by hand or
efficiently by a computer program, such as UNWEDGE (Rocscience, 1992). The computer program
calculates the safety factors dependent on failure mode and additionally visualises the calculation. The
potential unstable blocks can fall or slide in the excavation. These blocks must be stabilised by rock
bolts and/or shotcrete. The program gives possibility to include the support systems and calculate the
increased safety factor.

In order to demonstrate the application of the methods described in the previous text, an example of a
tunnel section in limestone, with cover depths of up to 150 m, is presented. The limestone is
characterised by a blocky structure with Geological Strength Index (Hoek at al, 1995) of GSI=70. In
limestone bedding planes and two joint systems have been detected. The joints are generally defined
as tightly closed, without or with thin gouge, thus ensuring wall contact. For each discontinuity set the
strength characteristics are defined based on the Barton strength low for discontinuities. The direction
of joints, dip and dip direction, are values defined with middle value and scatter. The calculation is
performed for fixed discontinuity directions, but the selected support system is tested on scatter of dip
and dip direction. The joint persistence is difficult to define and mostly it will be assumed that the
joints and discontinuities are fully persistent. Such calculation is on the safe side, but less on the
economical side. By un-continuous joints, the intact rock mass is enclosed within two or more natural
discontinuities. The stress concentration on the tip of discontinuity and crack propagation effect of
non-continuous joints can be included in the calculation by an increase of the joint strength. In our
project the actual incidence of jointing was unknown and for this region four support classes have
been defined: support class I and II for non-continuous joints, the support class III for fully continuous
joint systems (see Figure 2). Additionally, support class IV is defined as a support class in case of
higher karstified regions encountered during excavation.

As shown on Figure 2, for selected geometry and discontinuity strength characteristics two unstable
blocks will occur. These two blocks, one in the crown and one in the side are protected by rock bolts
from falling out. The safety against falling out after installation of rock bolts increased over 1.5.

UNDERGROUND CONSTRUCTION 2003 566

Additionally, shotcrete lining with wire mesh is designed with the function to support smaller blocks
between rock bolts and to achieve rockfall protection.

Figure 2 – Block stability analysis

Example 2: Plastified rock mass

Tunnelling in weak rock presents some special challenges for the geotechnical engineer since
misjudgements in the design of support systems can lead to very costly failures. In order to understand
the issues involved in the process of designing support for this type of tunnel, it is necessary to
examine some very basic concepts of how the ground surrounding a tunnel deforms it and how the
support system acts to control this deformation. Ground conditions, their properties and changes
through tunnel driving have vital influence on the stability of the underground opening. The ground
acts as a loading on the support structure and at the same time forms – due to its bond with the support
structure – a load-bearing part of structure. The design method used in these conditions has to take into
account such influences as: applied construction method, kind of ground (soil or rock), measures of

UNDERGROUND CONSTRUCTION 2003 567

ground improvement and stabilization, overburden and groundwater conditions, affected surface and
underground facilities, etc.

For detail analysis in such conditions a model which includes all these influences has to be used. The
finite element method becomes the most suitable solution for such problems. In case of road tunnel in
weak flysch rock an analysis is performed by the finite elements with computer program FINAL
(Swoboda, 2002). The program is developed specially for tunnelling including all important influences
on tunnel design such as special material behaviour laws for soil and rock, shotcrete strength
development in time, special rock bolt elements, seepage and pore water pressures, discontinuity
elements etc. The tunnel modelling method is described in detail by Swoboda et al. (1993) and
Marence (1996). The calculation is performed by a two-dimensional plane strain model. The model
includes the three-dimensional excavation effect by strain relief in front of the tunnel face by stiffness
reduction method (Swoboda et al. 1993).

A critical step in the design is the definition of reliable material parameters. In case of flysch rock,
these procedure is more complicated because of inhomogeneous material structure – alternations of
stronger sandstone layers separated by weaker siltstone and shale layers. Material characteristics of
both components are defined based on classification, laboratory tests and correlations. The material
characteristics of flysch are defined by “weighted average” of the strength properties of the strong and
weak layers (Hoek et al. 2000).

The weak ground does not allow excavation in full face and three-phase excavation: crown, bench and
invert, is designed. Additionally, to achieve face stability in extremely week regions, a pipe roof is
suggested. The pipe roof assists to achieve stability in the unsupported area and at the tunnel face by
bridging loads ahead of the face in longitudinal direction. The pipe roof made of steel tubes does not
make a bearing ring around the tunnel, such as the jet-grouting method, but acts as a longitudinal
reinforcement system. The primary support system in form of reinforced shotcrete lining and lattice
girders is designed. The thickness of lining reached up to 40 cm in extreme conditions.

All of the excavation phases together with applied support measures are modelled in finite element
calculation. The calculation follows excavation phases and gives possibility for control after each step.
The results of calculation, deformations and stresses, are presented in graphical form as diagrams,
isoline plots, stress arrows and plastic regions. This gives an easy and articulated way for detection of
zones with possible problems. In the next project phases these zones are additionally investigated and
their occurrence eliminated or diminished by additional constructive measures.

Normal forces in lining [kN]

Vertical deformations [m]

Figure 3 – Finite element analysis of tunnel in weak rock

UNDERGROUND CONSTRUCTION 2003 568

A scatter of input parameters and their influence on the results can easily be proved by probabilistic
approach. The method gives possibility to find probability of the unsatisfactory performance defined
by random variables, the distribution of which is quantified through statistical analysis of existing data
or just judgementally assigned. To minimise the calculation effort, a reliability index defined by the
Taylor Series - Finite Difference method is suggested (Marence, 1998). The method enables definition
of the reliability index using only 2n+1 calculation, where n is a number of random variables and is
practical for engineering problems. Additionally, the method gives possibility for the parameter
sensitivity analyses for each random variable.

During the construction works the design assumptions have been verified with the conditions on site.
The comprehensive observation program is carried out by detailed geological mapping, convergence,
settlement, extensometer and inclinometer measurements. Special care is taken with the check of
design material parameters for flysch. With help of back analysis on the existing finite element model,
designed material parameters are compared with designed values and with this new information the
design is additionally optimised. All of these procedures during the design and construction result in a
safe and cost efficient project.

Example 3: Squeezing rock mass

Squeezing of rock is a time-dependent large deformation which occurs around the underground
opening and is essentially associated with creep caused by exceeding a limiting shear stress (Barla,
1995). Squeezing can occur in both rock and soil as long as the particular combination of inducted
stresses and material properties pushes some zones around the opening beyond the limiting shear
stress at which creep starts. The magnitude of the convergences associated with squeezing, the rate of
deformation and the extent of yielding zone around the opening depend on the geological conditions,
the in situ stress relative to the rock mass strength, the groundwater flow and pore pressure and rock
mass properties. The squeezing capacity is also related to the excavation and support technique with
sequence adopted; allowing deformations cause stress redistribution and reduction of support forces
and in case of constrained deformations, squeezing leads to long term load build up on the support.
The squeezing is synonymous for overstressing and does not comprise deformations caused by
loosening of the ground and the rock bursting phenomena.

The problem of squeezing rock mass is described with the example of the Brenner Basis Tunnel – a 53
km long alpine tunnel between Austria and Italy with an overburden up to 2000 m. The tunnel crosses
though different geological units with very different characteristics. At the moment the project is in the
feasibility phase and the calculations serve to define the problem zones and difficulties which can
occur during excavation.

At the first stage of design, after definition of the geological units and their characteristics, the
squeezing potential has been determined along the whole tunnel length. The definition of the
squeezing potential is based on the work of Hoek and Marinos (2000) and it is defined as a ratio
between radial deformation of unsupported tunnel and tunnel radius, defined as a percentage. The
radial deformation is defined for unsupported tunnel based on analytical solution of Fritz (1984). The
analysis is based upon a simple closed-form solution for a circular tunnel in a hydrostatic stress field.
The assumptions are seldom met in the field, but the method gives a useful indication of potential
squeezing and tunnel support requirements.

As a next design stage, the regions with significant squeezing potential are subject to numerical
analyses by the finite element method. For each proposed support category a detailed analysis is
carried out. The analysis is performed by computer program FINAL (Swoboda, 2002) under
assumption of two-dimensional plane strain conditions. The model is selected based on the experience
in expected materials and similar conditions (high overburden). The tunnel is designed as a twin tube
single line system with an axial distance between the tubes of 40 m. The axial distance is defined as an
optimum from the structural and economical point of view. The finite element calculations show that
mostly, in with very weak disturbed zones, an increase of the axial distance up to 60 m permit more
economical design.

UNDERGROUND CONSTRUCTION 2003 569

 100

extreme squeezing
Squeezing potential (%)

10
severe squeezing

minor squeezing

no squeezing

0
964 5600 10000 15000 20000 24400 29400 34400 39000 44000 49000 54000
Chainage (m)

Figure 4 – Geological longitudinal section and squeezing potential

For unhindered and safe operation the tunnel system needs three multi-functional underground stations
(MFS) with complicate tunnel systems (see Figure 5). The MFS stations with a length up to 2.8 km
have the function to secure safe evacuation of passengers in case of emergency, but also changing of
lines, overtake, supply of energy, ventilation and heed dissipation and maintenance. The location of
the underground stations is primarily selected by their functions. Small location changes are done
according to the geological conditions with the aim to locate the station in the rock mass where less
squeezing problems are expected. This demand is successfully solved for two stations but the station
MFS Patsch must be situated in quartzphyllite (“Innsbrucker Quartzphyllit” which is known as a
tunnelling material from the Innsbruck by-pass tunnel. The quartzphylltit series (in general the zone up
to chinage 15000 m, Figure 4) has always been subject to intensive tectonic deformations which
generated shear zones generally oriented in the direction of strike of the phyllites. The accurate
location of these tectonic zones with thickness up to the length of a kilometre is unknown at this
project stage (additional investigations are in preparation) and their appearance cannot be excluded in
the area of the underground station. The fault zone consists of alternating layers of clayey gouges,
cataclasite and phyllite varying in thickness from one decimetre to tens of meters.

The two-dimensional finite element calculations of critical sections with up to 4 parallel tunnels
together with tunnel junctions were investigated. The two-dimensional models are selected as
satisfactory in the project phase, but for the next project stages three-dimensional calculations of these
underground stations, especially junction sections, are foreseen. Material behaviour and characteristics
are defined based on the back analysis of the by-pass tunnel.

The calculations follow the designed excavation procedure; firstly running tunnels, then connection
tunnels between them and finally service tunnels. Calculations are made for both material
characteristics of fair conditions in quartzphyllite and very poor rock conditions in fault zone. It has
shown that in case of a fault zone, additional ground treatment, but also more or less parallel
excavation procedures in adjoining tunnels gives favourable results, especially in distribution of
normal forces in primary lining.

For the next project phase extended geological and geotechnical investigation program is defined. The
investigation program should mainly serve to clarify all geological uncertainties, but also to define
necessary geotechnical parameters for better prediction of the ground key parameters based on the
defined ground behaviour types.

UNDERGROUND CONSTRUCTION 2003 570

 Figure 5 – Vertical stress around tunnels in underground station area

Conclusion

Geotechnical tunnel design is characterised by gradual design works in all project phases and during
construction. The process is carried out by a team of experienced engineers of different disciplines.
The design starts with the ground type definition established on extensive geological and geotechnical
investigations. Including the geometrical characteristics of opening in correlation with geology and
other geotechnical parameters, the qualitative geology is quantified and a ground behaviour type is
defined together with the suggested excavation method. The defined support system is tested on its
suitability by empirical, analytical and numerical tools in an iterative design process. All these tunnel
design tools give an answer to the potential difficulties during execution, and the structure reliability,
but cannot be a substitute for safety control in form of measurements, observations and back-analysis
during the excavation works. During construction, the design is critically inspected and compared with
in situ measurements and observations. Regular comparison of designed behaviour and actual
conditions given on site enable continuous improvement and supervision.

The examples presented do not define the design procedure for further projects, because each tunnel
project is a new challenge and each finished tunnel means a new experience and an increase in
knowledge of the determined conditions.

REFERENCES

1 G BARLA: ‘Squeezing rocks in tunnels’. ISRM News Journal, 1995, 3/4, 44-49.
2 N R BARTON: ‘The shear strength of rock and rock joints’. Int. J. Mech. Min. Sci. &
Geomech. Abstr. 1976, 13 (10), 1-24.
3 AUSTRIAN GEOMECHANICS SOCIETY – ÖGG: ‘Richtlinie für die Geomechanische
Planung von Untertagearbeiten mit zyklischen Vortrieb’, Österreichische Gesellschaft für
Geomechanik, Salzburg, Austria, 2001.

UNDERGROUND CONSTRUCTION 2003 571

 4 P FRITZ: ‘An analytical solution for axisymetric tunnel problem in elasto-viscoplastic
media’, Int. Journal for Numerical and Analytical methods in Geomechanics, 1984, 8, 325-
342.
5 E HOEK, P K KAISER and W. F. BAWDEN: Support of Underground Excavation in
Hard Rock. A:A: Balkema 1995.
6 E HOEK, P MARINOS: ‘Predicting tunnel squeezing problems in week heterogeneous
rock masses, Part 2 – Potential squeezing problems in deep tunnels’, Tunnels und
Tunnelling, 2000.
7 M MARENCE: ‘Finite Element Modelling of Pressure Tunnel’, Computer Methods in
Applied Sciences ‘96, John Willey and Sons, 1996, 211-217.
8 M MARENCE: ‘Reliability assessment of tunnel design’, Geotechnical Hazards, Balkema,
1998, 559-564.
9 ROCSCIENCE: ’Unwedge – Program for analysing the geometry and stability of
underground wedges’. Rock Engineering Group, University of Toronto, 1992.
10 G SWOBODA, M MARENCE, I MADER: ‘Finite Element Modelling of Tunnel
Excavation’, Engineering Modelling 1993, 1-4, 51-63.
11 G SWOBODA: ‘FINAL – Finite Element Analysis of linear and non-linear structures
under static and dynamic loading – Version 7.1’, University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, 2002.
12 G. SWOBODA, G. LANG: ‘FEMVUE – Final Postprocessor – Version 5.2’, University of
Innsbruck, Innsbruck, 2002.
13 US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS: ‘Tunnels and Shafts in Rock – Engineering Manual
EM 1110-2-2901’, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington DC, 1997.

UNDERGROUND CONSTRUCTION 2003 572

View publication stats