International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 59 (2013) 139–150

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

International Journal of
Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijrmms

Beam–spring structural analysis for the design of a tunnel pre-reinforcement

support system
Ki-Il Song a, Gye-Chun Cho b,n, Seok-Bue Chang c, In-Mo Lee d
a
Department of Civil Engineering, Inha University, Incheon, South Korea
b
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology, Daejeon 305-701, South Korea
c
Underground Eng. Team, Samsung C&T Corporation, Seoul, South Korea
d
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Korea University, Seoul, South Korea

a r t i c l e i n f o abstract

Article history: Various methods are used to stabilize tunnel faces during construction through weak ground and fault
Received 6 January 2012 zones, and at shallow depths. They include multiple-drift excavation method, reduction of advance
Received in revised form length, and auxiliary pre-reinforcement support systems. Pre-reinforcement support systems, such as
13 September 2012
the large-diameter steel-pipe-reinforced umbrella arching method (SPRUAM), have been widely used,
Accepted 20 December 2012
Available online 28 January 2013
especially in unfavorable conditions. However, owing to the absence of standardized guidelines, their
design currently depends on the judgment of engineers and case histories. While there have been some
Keywords: systematic and theoretical model studies on the quantitative design of such supports, a practical
Beam–spring structural model investigation of the same has not been undertaken. Thus, our study suggests a simplified theoretical
Tunnel design parameter
beam-spring structural analysis model for optimizing some important design parameters of the
Finite element method
SPRUAM. On the basis of this structural model, we developed simple but robust finite element software
Pre-reinforcement support system
that can process various design conditions and variables of the SPRUAM, such as ground condition,
tunnel section, primary support characteristics, and the dimensions of the steel pipes. We verified the
reliability of the developed software by comparing its output with that of commercial structural
analysis software. We also conducted case studies on three representative ground conditions –
weathered rock, highly weathered rock, and weathered soil – to evaluate the practical applicability
of the beam–spring structural analysis model. Our findings showed that the developed model was
reliable in estimating the quantity of steel pipes needed for the SPRUAM at an early stage of the design.
& 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Researchers have suggested various techniques for auxiliary

The construction of a large underground space is risky because
of the difficulties in predicting arching effects and estimating
various underground parameters. Multi-section excavation and
short advance length, which minimize the sudden load transfer
due to excavation, are conventionally used to stabilize tunnel
faces. To minimize the seepage force acting on the tunnel face,
groundwater ahead of it is often drained through horizontal probe
core drilling. Moreover, auxiliary pre-reinforcement support sys-
tems such as waterproof grouting and the reinforced protective
umbrella method (RPUM) have been used to strengthen the
stiffness of the ground and for waterproofing ahead of the tunnel
face. Recently, pre-reinforcement support systems have been
combined with the conventional excavation method (or New
Austrian Tunneling Method, NATM) in stabilizing tunnel faces.
n
Corresponding author. Tel.: þ82 42 869 3622; fax: þ 82 42 869 3610.
E-mail address: gyechun@kaist.edu (G.-C. Cho).
support systems, such as the RPUM, which has the advantage of
combining a modern fore-poling system with the grouting injec-
tion method [1]. This method is used in the pre-excavation design
of projects such as small-section tunneling through weathered or
crashed zones and the construction of large underground spaces.
Furthermore, to decrease the risk of a collapse or failure in large
excavation caverns and shallow tunnels, researchers have devel-
oped various techniques and construction methods. Among them
is a tunneling method involving an advanced reinforcement
system in which a double steel pipe is used for waterproofing
and a urethane injection is used for reinforcement. Another is the
Trevi jet method, which involves the use of cement grout in
constructing an arch-shell structure around the tunnel crown.
There is also steel-pipe-reinforced multistep grouting, in which a
beam arch is constructed around the tunnel crown with large
diameter steel pipes and multilayer cement grouting. This aux-
iliary support system has been given various names, e.g., ‘‘pipe
fore-pole umbrella’’ [2], ‘‘umbrella arch method’’ [3], ‘‘long-span
steel pipe fore-poling method’’ [4], and ‘‘steel pipe canopy’’ [5].

1365-1609/$ - see front matter & 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrmms.2012.12.017
140 K.-I. Song et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 59 (2013) 139–150
In our study, we called it the steel-pipe-reinforced umbrella
arching method (SPRUAM). Considering that the modern NATM
tunneling process is mechanized and involves the use of large
machines such as jumbo drills, shotcrete spraying machines, and
loading and transport equipment, an auxiliary pre-reinforcement
support system such as the SPRUAM is needed to secure sufficient
space for the operation of the machines.
Various researchers have mathematically modeled the struc-
tural stability of tunnels. Zienkiewicz and Pande [6] used a
multilaminate model to derive a constitutive equation. The multi-
laminate model became the foundation of the homogenization
constitutive equation derived by Bernaud [7] for rock-bolted
ground; this model can be used to simulate the anisotropic elastic
behavior of a pre-reinforced zone. Moreover, Bae et al. [8] used
the homogenization technique to simulate the SPRUAM.
In recent years, predefined structural elements embedded in
commercial software have been used to model each component of
a reinforcement system. This approach has been facilitated by the
evolution of computers and the development of special finite
element method (FEM) software for underground reinforcement.
The model used for assessing the SPRUAM was developed many
years ago. Kotake et al. [9] considered a reinforced zone as a shell
element, and later, beam elements were used to simulate the
inserted pipes of the shell element to model the reinforced zone.
In the simulation, the weighted Young’s modulus of the steel
pipes – i.e., the Young’s modulus of the pipes weighted by an area
ratio – was used. Furthermore, Song et al. [10] carried out a 3D
finite element (FE) analysis of the effect of the pipe length,
installation angle, overlap length, and particularly the tunnel size
and ground condition. However, this analytical approach signifi-
cantly depends on the intuition and experience of the designer
and the results also depend on the size and shape of the FEs and
the boundary conditions. Moreover, the processes involved
require considerable time and manual labor.
Although the SPRUAM significantly reduces the construction
time and cost, the design guidelines have not been clearly defined
or standardized and its use mostly depends on the judgment of
engineers and case histories. Hence, our study proposes a new
analytical technique that can be used to evaluate the stability of
the steel pipes. With a few reasonable assumptions, we derived a
simplified beam-spring structural analysis model and developed
FE software that can be used to calculate the bending moments
and shear forces of the steel pipe. We also verified the reliability
of the software by comparing its output with those of commer-
cially available structural analysis software.
2. Theoretical principles of the analytical model
2.1. Monitoring data of the SPRUAM
Fig. 1 shows the bending moment data of the Maiko tunnel in
Kobe, Japan [11]. The bending moment was measured at 1 m
intervals and a, b, c, and d denote the bending moments in the
unsupported section. It can be observed that the behavior of the
bending moment is similar to that of a beam simply supported on
two pivots and subjected to a distributed load—i.e., with one
support ahead of the tunnel face and the other beyond the
unsupported section. The location of the support beyond the
unsupported section is almost the same as the advance length,
while the location of the support ahead of the tunnel face is
approximately one to two times the advance length from the
tunnel face. As can be observed, the negative bending moment is
at a peak at the tunnel face.
As discernible, the earth pressure acting on the steel pipe
beyond the unsupported section can be sufficiently supported by
12 m
4m 1.5 m2.5 m
Steel pipe
abcd
Sprayed shotcrete Steel set
Upper face
a
15
Measured bending moments (kN·m) of
b
the steel pipe (due to each upper
10 c
5 d
0
excavation)
-5
-10
-15
-20
-25
6 4 2 0 -2 -4 -6
Distance from the upper face (m)
Fig. 1. Measured bending moment of a steel pipe by Harazaki et al. [11].
the stiffness of the primary support, while that acting on the steel
pipe ahead of the tunnel face can be supported by the stiffness of
the ground. However, the earth pressure acting on the steel pipe
in the unsupported section remains unsupported. Therefore,
a simply supported beam subjected to a distributed load can be
used to simulate the condition of the steel pipe in the unsup-
ported section. Nevertheless, certain design parameters and
assumptions must be outlined in developing a structural model.
2.2. Reinforcement mechanism of the SPRUAM
The SPRUAM has the advantage of combining a modern fore-
poling system with the cement grout injection method. It has two
reinforcement mechanisms, namely, the structural reinforcement
effect of the steel pipes and the ground improvement effect of the
cement grout. The steel pipes installed ahead of the tunnel face
transfer the earth pressure (concentrated on the unsupported
section) to the primary support (i.e., the shotcrete and steel set)
behind the tunnel face and to the ground ahead of the tunnel face.
Thus, the bending strength of the steel pipes sustains the
unsupported excavation section before the installation of the
primary support system, as shown in Fig. 2.
The cement grout injected into the weak ground fills the
annuals and pores (or joints), increases the ground strength, and
decreases its permeability. Thus, grouting can prevent soil loss
between the steel pipes and reduce groundwater flow into the
tunnel. However, it has been proven in recent studies that cement
grout does not efficiently permeate fine-grained weathered soil.
Only the longitudinal bending strength of the steel pipes can be
utilized in such soil conditions [12].
2.3. Design conditions and variables
The design conditions of the SPRUAM include the ground
condition, the tunnel section, and the support characteristics of
the shotcrete and steel set. The design variables include the
geometric characteristics (i.e., longitudinal interval, transversal
interval, and transversal reinforcement range) and the dimen-
sions of the steel pipe (i.e., length, thickness, and diameter). Fig. 3
illustrates some of the design conditions and variables. The
 K.-I. Song et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 59 (2013) 139–150 141

Earth pressure
Cement grouting

Smeared zone
Drilled hole
Steel pipe
Steel pipe

Primary support Supported by ground

Unsupported span
Bending
strength
Supported span

Fig. 2. Reinforcement mechanism of the steel-pipe-reinforced umbrella arching method (SPRUAM).

SL
LP
Potential
L Le failure surface
ST Potential failure surface
T Shotcrete (Tshot, Eshot,ν) (Support core)
R H
Support core +

Fig. 3. Design conditions and variables for SPRUAM.

Table 1
Design conditions and design variables for SPRUAM.

Design conditions Design variables for steel pipe

Tunnel section Ground condition Support characteristic Sectional Longitudinal section Transversal section
characteristics

Horizontal width (D) Friction angle (f)
Vertical height (H) Cohesion (c)
Advance length (Le) Unit weight (g)
Poisson’s ratio (vg)
Earth pressure coefficient (K0)
Young’s modulus (Eg)
Overburden height (h)
Area of steel set (Aset) Length (Lp) Installation interval (ST) Installation interval (SL)
Young’s modulus of steel set (Eset) Diameter (Dp) Installation angle (yL) Installation angle (yT)
Installation interval for steel set (d) Thickness (Tp) Reinforcing range (yR)
Height of steel set (hset) Young’s modulus (Ep)
Thickness of shotcrete (Tshot)
Young’s modulus of shotcrete (Eshot)
Poisson’s ratio of shotcrete (vs)

longitudinal installation angle of the pipe, which is usually
determined by some factors of the site, such as operation space,
is another design condition. A small longitudinal installation
angle offers better reinforcement. All the design conditions and
design variables for the SPRUAM are summarized in Table 1.
The general practice when employing the SPRUAM in South
Korea is to use steel pipes with diameters in the range of 60.5 mm
(4 mm thick) to 114.3 mm (4.5 mm thick) and lengths in the
range of 12 m–16 m. The longitudinal installation angle is less
than 151 and the drilling diameter for the installation of the steel
pipe ranges from 100 mm to 150 mm, depending on the diameter
of the steel pipe. The transversal installation interval varies from
40 cm to 60 cm. The longitudinal overlap of the pipes is one-third
of their length, regardless of the tunnel height and the ground
condition. To reinforce the side wall of the tunnel, a transversal
reinforcement angle of 1201 is generally used for weathered rock
and 1801 for soil.
The unsupported section of the earth is protected with the
steel pipes using a suitable longitudinal interval. The potential
failure surface begins at the tunnel invert at an angle of f/2þ p/4
and is located within the range of the steel pipes ahead of the
tunnel face. Hence, an intersection between a potential failure
surface and a steel pipe can be expected. As noted earlier, the
general practice of determining the longitudinal interval does not
consider the tunnel height and the ground condition. Our study,
however, suggested a new method for determining the long-
itudinal interval on the basis of the longitudinal installation
angle, tunnel height, friction angle of the ground, and length of
the pipes.
As implied above, the stability of the tunnel face demands that
an extension of the potential failure surface beginning at the
invert of the tunnel must intersect the steel pipes. On the basis of
this concept, the following equation was derived:
 
  p f
SL oLp cosyL  H þ Lp sinyL tan  ð1Þ
4 2
where the variables are as shown in Table 1. When a core is used
to support the tunnel face, it is logical to fix the center of the
supporting core using the bottom line as the origin of the
potential failure surface. We utilized this equation in the software
that we developed so that the stability of the tunnel face and the
142 K.-I. Song et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 59 (2013) 139–150

length of the steel pipes can be determined at the initial
design stage.
2.4. Derivation of the beam-spring structural analysis model
conversion equations in Fig. 4. However, the earth pressure on
the steel pipe in the unsupported section remains a distributed
load. With these assumptions, we derived a beam–spring struc-
tural analysis model for the SPRUAM as shown in Fig. 4.

In deriving a structural analysis model that can be used to 3. FEM-based software

analyze the various conditions related to the SPRUAM, we
simplified the reinforcement mechanisms by making some rea-
sonable assumptions that minimize the uncertainties of the
tunnel support design. The assumptions are as follows: (i) The
vertical component of the inclined steel pipe, given by Lp cos yL,
is used as the length. (ii) The structural analysis model applies to
the critical state of the SPRUAM, which is just before the
installation of the next pipe. (iii) The potential failure surface is
a straight line originating from the bottom of the tunnel face, or
the center of the support core along the bench level, and inclined
at an angle of f/2þ p/4. (iv) The total earth pressure is not
entirely concentrated at the unsupported section and the soft
shotcrete section. Considering the arching effect, a load distribu-
tion factor is introduced to quantify the acting earth pressure.
(v) The earth pressure acting on the steel pipe ahead of the tunnel
face decreases linearly. There is zero earth pressure outside the
intersection between the steel pipe and the potential failure
surface. (vi) The ground and primary supports (e.g., the shotcrete
and steel set) are modeled as reaction springs that can rotate and
freely move in the vertical direction. The steel pipe is modeled as
a beam element. Thus, the bending moments and shear forces on
the steel pipe can be calculated by a beam analysis. (vii) The steel
pipe of the SPRUAM and the cement grout used to improve the
ground structurally support the earth. The cement grout injected
into the drilled holes fills the annulus and binds the steel pipe to
the ground. The grouting effect is, however, considered an
auxiliary safety feature because its quality is dependent on
ground conditions and cannot be clearly verified. Thus, this
assumption is a conservative design factor of the SPRUAM. (viii)
Since the steel pipe beyond the unsupported section is fully
supported by the shotcrete and steel set, and the steel pipe ahead
of the tunnel face is supported by the ground, the distributed
earth pressure can be replaced with nodal loads using the
3.1. Considerations of design analysis
Using Eq. (1), we performed a preliminary stability assessment
of the steel pipe by considering the core support behind the
tunnel face.
To estimate the earth pressure (Pv) acting on the steel pipe, the
loosening earth pressure (W) was estimated. To do this, we
adopted Terzaghi’s loosening earth pressure model for a tunnel
in shallow and weak ground. It must be noted, however, that in a
case where the overburden pressure is high, Terzaghi’s loosening
earth pressure model cannot be used to analyze the arching effect.
Thus, the applicability of the model was determined by consider-
ing the ground condition and the depth of the tunnel. The
loosening earth pressure was calculated using the following
equation [13]:
  
B1 g c=B1  
W¼ 1eK 0 tan fððh þ R sinyT Þ=B1 Þ ð2Þ
K 0 tan f
where R is the radius of the tunnel, h is the overburden depth, g is
the unit weight of soil, c is the cohesion, K0 is the lateral earth
pressure coefficient, f is the friction angle of the ground, yT is the
transversal installation angle of the steel pipe, and B1 is given by
 
p f
B1 ¼ Rcot þ ð3Þ
8 4
The lateral earth pressure is generally less than 1.0 because
most ground conditions requiring the SPRUAM are shallow
weathered rock or soil. Thus, the reinforcement of the tunnel
crown section is considered to be more critical than that of the
tunnel side wall. The stiffness of the shotcrete is relatively higher
than that of the steel set and the stiffness of the reaction spring is
a combination of both.

LP

P1 = L1 Pv / 2

θL
Le P2 = L1 Pv
Potential
P3 = Pv [ L1 + L(α + β )] / 2
failure surface
Hard shotcrete P4 = Pv L(α + β ) / 2
H
Soft shotcrete W1 = α Pv
P5 = 7 L2Pvα / 16
Pv Pv '' = (α + β ) Pv P6 = 11L2 Pvα / 16

Pv ' = α Pv P7 = L2 Pvα /16

P2
P3
P4
P1 W1 P5
P6 P7
L1 L1 L L2 L2 L3
L

k 1s k s2 k s3 k s4 k 1g k g2 k g3 k g4

Fig. 4. Beam–spring structural analysis model for SPRUAM.

 K.-I. Song et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 59 (2013) 139–150
To analyze the reinforcement range of the SPRUAM, the force
acting on the steel pipe was also determined considering the
transversal installation angle. The vertical force acting on the pipe
(Fv) was determined by multiplying the width of the soil mass
(i.e., the transversal installation interval) by Terzaghi’s loosening
earth pressure W. In addition, the horizontal force (Fh) acting on
the pipe was determined by multiplying the lateral earth pressure
coefficient (K0) by the vertical force (Fv). The following equations
apply:
F v ¼ ST W
Fh ¼ FvK 0
The distributed earth pressure acting on the steel pipe in the
unsupported and soft shotcrete sections was divided into vertical
and horizontal components. At the top of the tunnel crown, the
vertical earth pressure was dominant and the horizontal earth
pressure on one side of the steel pipe balanced that on the other
side. On the side wall of the tunnel, the vertical earth pressure
was supported and balanced by the reaction stiffness of the
ground, while the horizontal earth pressure largely acted on the
steel pipe. Thus, the following periodic function was used to
express the total pressure (Pv) acting on the steel pipe in the
unsupported and soft shotcrete sections:
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
P v ¼ F 2v cosyT þ F 2h sinyT ð6Þ
The force Pv acts vertically on the top of the tunnel crown
when yT ¼01, but acts horizontally on the side wall when yT ¼901.
The load distribution factors of the unsupported and soft
shotcrete sections can be determined using the following equa-
tions [14]:
a ¼ 3:340 Le þ 3:778 ln Eg
k ¼ 3:126 Le þ3:391D
b ¼ 100ða þ kÞ
where a, b, and k are the load distribution factors in percentages,
Le is the advance length (i.e., the span of the unsupported section)
in meters, D is the width of the tunnel in meters, and Eg is the
Young’s modulus of the ground measured in tonf/m2. The total
earth pressure acting on the steel pipe in the soft shotcrete
section is Pv00 ¼(a þ b)Pv, while the total earth pressure acting on
the steel pipe in the unsupported section is Pv0 ¼ aPv. The stiffness
of the reaction spring of the ground was determined with
2Eg
kg ¼ ST
h the steel pipes were 1200 kgf/cm2 and 2100 kgf/cm2, respectively.
where ST is the transversal installation interval, h is the over-
burden depth, and Eg is the Young’s modulus of the ground. The
stiffness of the reaction spring of the shotcrete and steel set can
be determined by [15]
 
1 Eshot ½R2 ðRT shot Þ2 
kshot ¼ h i
R ð1 þ nÞ ð12nÞR2 þ ðRT 2
shot Þ
Eset Aset
kset ¼   2
d R hset =2
where Eshot, Tshot, and v are respectively Young’s modulus, thick-
ness, and Poisson’s ratio of the shotcrete; Eset, Aset, d, and hset are
respectively Young’s modulus, cross-sectional area, longitudinal
installation interval, and height of the steel set; and R is the radius
of the tunnel.
143
3.2. FE algorithm
On the basis of the derived beam–spring structural analysis
model, we developed FE analysis software that can be used to
calculate the shear force and bending moment of the beam
element supported by the spring element. An FE algorithm for
the beam-spring structural model can be found in the paper of
Smith and Griffiths [16].
A linear elastic beam was used to simulate the state of the
steel pipe. Each beam element was separated to obtain its
ð4Þ
elemental equation, establish its stiffness matrix, and calculate
the vertical reaction force and bending moment at all the beam
ð5Þ nodes. The load vector of each beam element was calculated from
the vertical reaction and bending moment at each node. The
equations obtained for all the elements were combined into one
system equation. The global stiffness matrix of the beam–spring
structure model was obtained using the direct FE stiffness
method. To simplify, the stiffness matrices of the spring elements
were also combined in one global stiffness matrix.
The procedure for generating the global stiffness matrix of a
system equation using the direct FE stiffness method can also be
found in the paper of Smith and Griffiths [16]. It involves adding
the stiffness matrices of the nodes of adjacent beam elements.
Similarly, the global load vector of the system equation was
generated by adding the reactions and bending moments at the
nodes of adjacent elements. Thus, the compatibility of the
displacement and the force equilibrium at each node was upheld
by relating the nodal displacement and bending moment to the
global system.
The unknown displacement vectors can be determined by
various matrix inversion techniques. In our study, we used the
Gauss–Jordan elimination method to obtain the inversion matrix
of the global stiffness matrix and the unknown displacement
ð7Þ vectors. From the known displacement and stiffness of the spring
elements, the reaction forces at each node were determined. Since
ð8Þ the stability of the beam requires that the sum of the vertical
reaction forces, excluding the bending moments, must be equal to
ð9Þ the total external load acting on the beam-spring model, the
validity of the above calculations was determined by checking if
X X
Rv ¼ Pv ð13Þ
where Rv is the reaction force at each node and Pv is the earth
pressure acting on each element of the beam-spring model.
The shear forces and bending moments of the model were
determined from the vertical reaction forces at each node and the
earth pressure acting on the steel pipe. We then analyzed the
stability of the steel pipe on the basis of the shear and bending
stresses, keeping in mind that the maximum allowable values for
ð10Þ
The maximum shear stress was calculated from the maximum
shear force (Smax) obtained from the FE analysis and the sectional
area of the steel pipe (A) using
smax
sshear_max ¼ ð14Þ
A
ð11Þ The factor of safety with respect to shear stress (FOSshear) was
calculated using
sallowableshear
FOSshear ¼ ð15Þ
ð12Þ sshear_max
In addition, the maximum bending stress was calculated from
the maximum bending moment (Mmax) and the sectional modulus
(Z) using
M max
sbending_max ¼ ð16Þ
Z
144 K.-I. Song et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 59 (2013) 139–150

Table 2
Design conditions and design variables for verification work.

Design conditions Design variables for steel pipe

Tunnel section Ground condition Support characteristic Sectional characteristics Transversal section Longitudinal section

D ¼ 10 m f ¼ 301 Tshot ¼16 cm Lp ¼ 12 m yT ¼01 (Tunnel Crown) SL ¼ 7.2 m

H ¼5 m c ¼100 kPa Eshot ¼ 15 GPa Tp ¼ 4 mm for Dp ¼ 60.5 mm Tp ¼ 5.6 mm for Dp ¼ 114.3 mm yL ¼ 101
Le ¼0.8 m g ¼21 kN/m3 vs ¼0.2 Ep ¼210 GPa
vg ¼ 0.3 Aset ¼0.00219 m2 Case 1: Dp ¼ 60.5 mm ST ¼40 cm
K0 ¼0.5 Eset ¼ 210 GPa Case 2: Dp ¼ 60.5 mm ST ¼60 cm
Eg ¼150 MPa d ¼1.5 m Case 3: Dp ¼ 114.3 mm ST ¼40 cm
h ¼ 20 m hset ¼0.1 m Case 4: Dp ¼ 114.3 mm ST ¼60 cm

5.00
4.00 3D FEM
3.00 DART
Tunnel 2.00
Crown 1.00
0.00
-1.00
-2.00
-3.00
-4.00
-5.00
0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Fig. 5. Verification of structural analysis model for the steel pipe installed ahead of the tunnel face: (a) 3D FE model, (b) tunnel and SPRUAM, (c) bending moment
distribution, and (d) comparison of DART and the 3D FE model.

Table 3
The factor of safety with respect to the bending stress Model parameters obtained from DART.
(FOSbending) was calculated using
Model Parameters Case 1 and Case 3 Case 2 and Case 4
sallowablebending
FOSbending ¼ ð17Þ
sbending_max ks1 209,097.7 209,097.7
ks2 352,502.1 352,502.1
The factors of safety with respect to shear stress and bending ks3 169,002.7 169,002.7
stress are effective indicators of the structural stability of the steel ks4 32,427.07 32,427.07
pipe. If the factors of safety are greater than one, then the design kg1 4200 6300
variables of the steel pipes are suitable for the SPRUAM. However, kg2 8400 12600
kg3 9300 13950
to optimize the design of the SPRUAM, the design variables can be
kg4 5100 7650
adjusted so as not to exceed a certain level depending on the P1 (kN) 77.27437 115.9116
purpose of the structure. P2 (kN) 154.5487 231.8231
P3 (kN) 92.41811 138.6272
P4 (kN) 15.14375 22.71562
3.3. Verification of developed FE software P5 (kN) 13.18511 19.77767
P6 (kN) 20.71946 31.0792
To verify the reliability of the structural model and the FE P7 (kN) 1.883588 2.825381
software that we developed, they were used to analyze a subway W1 (kN/m2) 21.52672 32.29007
L1 (m) 2.8 2.8
tunnel located 20 m below the surface of a weathered rock. The
L (m) 0.8 0.8
results were compared with those obtained with MIDAS-GTS [17] L2 (m) 1.4 1.4
and MIDAS-CIVIL [18], which are proven commercial structural L3 (m) 1.7 1.7
software packages. The comparison is summarized in Table 2.
The verification process involved carrying out a 3D FE analysis
of the behavior of the steel pipes ahead of the tunnel face. The model was fixed by the four end sections, while the vertical
width, height, and depth of the 3D FE model (Fig. 5a) were 80 m, boundary was fixed at the bottom section. An elasto-plastic
50 m, and 48 m, respectively. The horizontal boundary of the ground material (i.e., a linearly elastic and perfectly plastic
 K.-I. Song et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 59 (2013) 139–150
Table 4
Shear force diagram.
Case DART
Case 1
Case 2
Case 3
Case 4
material that satisfies the Mohr–Coulomb yield criterion and non-
associated flow rule) was used for the analysis. The SPRUAM of
the 3D FE model is shown in Fig. 5b. The diameter of the steel pipe
was 114.3 mm, the thickness was 5.6 mm, and the transversal
installation interval was 60 cm. The excavation length, which is
the same as the steel set interval, was 0.8 m.
Fig. 5c shows the distribution of the bending moments along
the steel pipe. The shape of the distribution was exactly the same
as that obtained with our beam-spring structural model. There
was a significant change in the bending moment in the unsup-
ported section. Fig. 5d is a comparison of the results of the 3D FE
analysis with those obtained with our developed software, which
we named Design of Advance Reinforcement for Tunnel Face
(hereafter referred to as DART). Although there were some
differences in the amplitudes, the general shapes of distribution
of the bending moments were very similar. The differences can be
attributed to the assumptions of our study.
DART was used to determine the model parameters of four
different cases, summarized in Table 3. A structural model of the
beam and spring elements was built with MIDAS-CIVIL using the
model parameters (e.g., the stiffness of the spring element, the nodal
and distributed loads, and the dimensions of the beam element).
Separate analyses of the shear and bending moments were performed
using DART and MIDAS-CIVIL and the results were compared.
As shown in Tables 4 and 5, the shear force and bending
moment diagrams obtained with MIDAS-CIVIL and DART were
identical in shape. A comparison of the section forces obtained
with two software packages is also presented in Table 6. The
maximum difference in the bending moments was less than 3%,
whereas the maximum difference in the shear forces for the same
FOS was less than 0.9%. The reliability of DART for designing the
steel pipes of the SPRUAM was thus verified.
145
MIDAS-CIVIL
DART includes pre-process and post-process modules. The pre-
process module enables the determination of various design
parameters of the steel pipes in both the transversal and the
longitudinal sections and the stiffness of the shotcrete and steel
set support. The post-process module enables the determination
of the factors of safety and the generation of a graphical illustra-
tion of the steel pipe installation design. It also checks the length
of the pipe from its intersection with the potential failure surface.
4. Case studies in representative grounds
Case studies on the SPRUAM were conducted in three ground
conditions representative of those in which the reinforcement
method is generally used, namely, weathered rock, highly weath-
ered rock, and weathered soil. The material properties of the
grounds and the design variables are presented in Table 7.
The tunnel section, support characteristics, and longitudinal
section of the steel pipes were identical for the three cases. The
depths of the tunnels varied from 10 m to 40 m (i.e., 10, 20, 30,
and 40 m). Two transversal installation intervals of 40 cm and
60 cm were adopted. The diameters of the steel pipes were
60.5 mm, 80 mm and 114.3 mm. The factors of safety of the shear
force and the bending moment were also obtained for different
transversal installation angles (i.e., 01 [tunnel crown], 101, 201,
301, 401, 501, 601, 701, 801, 901 [tunnel side wall]).
4.1. Factor of safety of shear force
Fig. 6 shows the variation of the factor of safety of the shear
force (FOSshear) with the transversal installation interval, over-
burden depth, ground condition, and diameter of the steel pipe.
146 K.-I. Song et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 59 (2013) 139–150

Table 5
Bending moment diagram.

Case DART MIDAS-CIVIL

Case 1

Case 2

Case 3

Case 4

Table 6
Summary of verification of DART.

Case Calculation condition Section force (DART) Section force (MIDAS-CIVIL) Difference

Section of steel pipe ST (cm) M (kN-m) S (kN) M (kN-m) S (kN) M (%) S (%)

Case 1 Dp ¼60.5 mm 40 1.417 10.561 1.404 10.555 0.917 0.057

Tp ¼ 4 mm
Case 2 Dp ¼60.5 mm 60 1.745 14.927 1.728 14.915 0.974 0.080
Tp ¼ 4 mm
Case 3 Dp ¼114.3 mm 40 3.493 15.863 3.404 15.752 2.548 0.699
Tp ¼ 5.6 mm
Case 4 Dp ¼114.3 mm 60 3.920 20.980 3.802 20.793 3.000 0.891
Tp ¼ 5.6 mm

Note: M and S denote moment and shear force, respectively.

As the diameter of the steel pipe increased, FOSshear also increased.
As the overburden depth increased, FOSshear decreased and con-
verged. As the transversal installation interval increased from
40 cm to 60 cm, FOSshear decreased.
Fig. 7 also shows the variation of FOSshear with the ground
condition. As the Young’s modulus of the ground decreased,
FOSshear also decreased. FOSshear was generally greater than one,
indicating that the steel pipes installed in the different ground
conditions were stable.
4.2. Factor of safety of the bending moment
Fig. 8 shows the variation of the factor of safety of the bending
moment (FOSbending) with the transversal installation interval, over-
burden depth, and diameter of the steel pipe. As the diameter of the
steel pipe increased, FOSbending also increased. As the overburden
depth increased, FOSbending decreased and converged. As the transver-
sal installation interval increased from 40 cm to 60 cm, FOSbending
decreased. The variations were the same as those of FOSshear.
It was also possible to obtain FOSbending greater than one using
steel pipes of diameter 60 mm installed at 60 cm transversal
intervals in weathered rock with an overburden depth of less than
30 m. However, to obtain a similar FOSbending in weathered soil
with an overburden depth of 10 m, steel pipes of diameter
114.3 mm installed at 40 cm transversal intervals were necessary.
It was thus deduced that as the ground condition worsened,
a larger sized steel pipe and smaller transversal installation
intervals were required. In addition, additional reinforcement
was required to secure the stability of the tunnel face as the
depth of the weathered soil increased. FOSbending was found to be
 K.-I. Song et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 59 (2013) 139–150 147

Table 7
Material properties of representative ground condition.

Tunnel Design conditions Design variables for steel pipe

section
Ground condition Support Sectional characteristics Transversal section Longitudi-
characteristic nal section

D ¼ 10 m Symbols WR HWR WS Tshot ¼ 16 cm Lp ¼ 12 m yT ¼ 01 (Tunnel crown), 101, 201, SL ¼ 7.2 m

Tp ¼ 4 mm for 301, 401, 501, 601, 701,
H ¼5 m f(deg.) 35 30 30 Eshot ¼ 15 GPa Dp ¼ 60.5 mm and 80 mm 801 901 (Tunnel side wall) yL ¼ 101
Tp ¼ 5.6 mm for Dp ¼ 114.3 mm
Le ¼0.8 m c (kPa) 250 100 30 vs ¼0.2 Ep ¼210 GPa
g (kN/m3) 22.6 21 18 Aset ¼ 0.00219 m2 Dp ¼ 60.5 mm Dp ¼80 mm ST ¼ 40 cm
Dp ¼ 114.3 mm ST ¼ 60 cm

K0 0.5 0.5 0.5 Eset ¼ 210 GPa

Eg (MPa) 500 150 2 d ¼1.5 m
vg 0.3 0.32 0.35 hset ¼0.1 m
h (m) 10, 20, 30 and 40 m

Note: WR, HWR and WS denote weathered rock, highly weathered rock and weathered soil, respectively.

Transversal installation interval = 40 cm Transversal installation interval = 60 cm

60 D:60mm S:40cm 40 D:60mm S:60cm

D:80mm S:40cm D:80mm S:60cm
50 Factor of Safety
Factor of Safety

D:114.3mm S:40cm 30 D:114.3mm S:60cm

40
30 20
20
10
10
0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50
Overburden (m) Overburden (m)

40 D:60mm S:40cm 30 D:60mm S:60cm

D:80mm S:40cm D:80mm S:60cm
Factor of Safety

D:114.3mm S:60cm
Factor of Safety

30 D:114.3mm S:40cm
20
20
10
10

0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50
Overburden (m) Overburden (m)

15 D:60mm S:40cm 12 D:60mm S:60cm

D:80mm S:40cm D:80mm S:60cm
12
Factor of Safety

D:114.3mm S:40cm D:114.3mm S:60cm

Factor of Safety

9
9
6
6
3
3

0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50
Overburden (m) Overburden (m)

Fig. 6. Factor of safety (FOS) of shear force. (a) Weathered rock, (b) Highly weathered rock and (c) Weathered soil.

more critical than FOSshear. Our observations suggest that FOSbend-
ingshould be used as the primary indicator in evaluating the
stability of the steel pipes when using the SPRUAM.
Fig. 9 shows the variation of FOSbending with the ground
condition. As Young’s modulus of the ground decreased, FOSbending
decreased. Moreover, it was observed that a ground weaker than
highly weathered rock with a Young’s modulus of 150 MPa would
cause stability problems for the steel pipe. This is because
FOSbending became less than one as the overburden depth
increased.
148 K.-I. Song et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 59 (2013) 139–150

4.3. Factors of safety and transversal installation angle installation intervals of 40 cm. It was observed that FOSshear
decreased with an increase in the transversal installation angle
Figs. 10 and 11 show the variation of FOSshear and FOSbending and that the minimum FOSshear occurred when the transversal
with the transversal installation angle, respectively, for a 10 m installation angle was about 451, regardless of the lateral earth
overburden depth of weathered soil (Eg ¼2 MPa), steel pipe pressure coefficient (K0). In addition, FOSshear of the tunnel side wall
diameter of 114.3 mm (thickness of 5.6 mm), and transversal decreased as K0 increased. This was because the lateral earth pressure

60 16

14 E = 500000kPa
50 E = 500000 kPa E = 150000kPa
12
E = 150000 kPa E = 2000kPa

Factor of Safety
40
Factor of Safety

E = 2000 kPa 10

30 8

6
20
4
10
2

0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50
Overburden (m) Overburden (m)

Fig. 7. FOS of shear force with respect to ground condition (Dp ¼ 114.3 mm, Fig. 9. FOS of bending moment with respect to ground condition (Dp ¼114.3 mm,
ST ¼ 40 cm). ST ¼40 cm).

Transversal installation interval = 40 cm Transversal installation interval = 60 cm

16 10
D:60mm S:40cm D:60mm S:60cm
14
D:80mm S:40cm 8 D:80mm S:60cm
Factor of Safety
Factor of Safety

12
D:114.3mm S:40cm D:114.3mm S:60cm
10 6
8
6 4
4
2
2
0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50
Overburden (m) Overburden (m)

12 8
D:60mm S:40cm D:60mm S:60cm
10 D:80mm S:40cm D:80mm S:60cm
Factor of Safety

6
Factor of Safety

8 D:114.3mm S:40cm D:114.3mm S:60cm

6 4

4
2
2
0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50
Overburden (m) Overburden (m)

1.2 1.0
1.0 0.8 D:80mm S:60cm
Factor of Safety
Factor of Safety

D:80mm S:40cm
0.8 D:60mm S:60cm
D:60mm S:40cm 0.6
D:114.3mm S:60cm
0.6 D:114.3mm S:40cm
0.4
0.4
0.2 0.2

0.0 0.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50
Overburden (m) Overburden (m)

Fig. 8. FOS of bending moment. (a) Weathered rock, (b) Highly weathered rock and (c) weathered soil.
 K.-I. Song et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 59 (2013) 139–150 149

conditions and variables of the SPRUAM, such as the ground condi-

24
tion, tunnel section, primary support (shotcrete and steel set)
21 characteristics, and dimensions of the steel pipes.
To verify the reliability of the developed software, which we called
18 T Design of Advance Reinforcement for Tunnel Face (DART), the shear
forces and bending moments computed with it were compared with
Factor of Safety

15 those computed with MIDAS-CIVIL commercial structural analysis

12 software. The maximum differences between the bending moments
and shear forces computed by DART and MIDAS-CIVIL were less than
9 3% and 0.9%, respectively. Moreover, the shapes of the graphical
K0 = 0.4
illustrations of the outputs of the two software packages were
6 K0 = 0.5 identical.
To verify the practical applicability of the derived beam-spring
3 K0 = 0.6
structural analysis model of the SPRUAM, case studies were
0 conducted in three different ground conditions representative of
0 20 40 60 80 100 the types in which the reinforcement method is generally used.
Transversial Angle (Degree) The stability of the steel pipes was particularly evaluated through
an analysis of the factors of safety of the shear forces and the
Fig. 10. Variation of FOS of shear force with transversal installation angle
bending moments. We found that the model can be effectively
(Dp ¼ 114.3 mm, ST ¼40 cm).
used to determine the quantitative specifications of the steel
pipes of the SPRUAM at an early stage of the design. Moreover, we
2.5
used our findings to develop some guidelines for the design of the
SPRUAM. An objective and quantitative design process based on
2.0 the monitoring result will enhance the reliability of the suggested
method in the future.
T
Factor of Safety

1.5
Acknowledgments

1.0
K0 = 0.4
0.5 K0 = 0.5
K0 = 0.6
0.0
0 20 40 60 80
Transversial Angle (Degree)
Fig. 11. Variation of FOS of bending moment with transversal installation angle
(Dp ¼ 114.3 mm, ST ¼ 40 cm).
acting on the steel pipe increased. Our observations indicated that, in
terms of shear force, the steel pipes of the SPRUAM were quite safe
because the minimum FOSshear was greater than 10.
From Fig. 11, it can be seen that FOSbending was greater than one at
the top of the tunnel crown. However, as the transversal installation
angle increased, FOSbending became less than one. However, as the
transversal installation angle exceeded 451, FOSbending began to
increase and became greater than one beyond 601. This suggested
that steel pipes of larger diameter installed at lower transversal
intervals should be used for installation angles between 151 and 601.
Moreover, it was found that in such weathered soil conditions, the
minimum transversal reinforcement range (yR) was 1201 (601  2)
and a wider transversal reinforcement range was necessary.
5. Conclusions
With a few reasonable assumptions, our study derived a beam-
spring structural analysis model for the quantitative design of the
steel-pipe-reinforced umbrella arching method (SPRUAM). The ana-
lysis of the model showed good agreement with field observations
and was thus verified as being reliable for simulating the behavior of
the shear forces and bending moments of the SPRUAM steel pipes. On
the basis of the derived model, we also developed and verified
simplified FE analysis software that can process various design
This work was supported by INHA UNIVERSITY Research Grant
(INHA-46436) and by the Jijoong Construction Company.
References
100 [1] Barisone G, Pigorini B, Pelizza S. Umbrella arch method for tunnelling in
difficult conditions-analysis of Italian cases. In: Proceedings of the fourth
congress international association of engineering geology. New Delhi; 1982.
p. 15–27.
[2] Hoek E. Numerical modelling for shallow tunnels in weak rock. 2004.
Available at: /www.rocscience.com/hoek/DiscussionPapers.aspS.
[3] Kim CY, Kim KY, Hong SW, Bae GJ, Shin HS. Interpretation of field measure-
ments and numerical analyses on pipe umbrella method in weak ground
tunneling. In: Proceedings of the 53rd geomechanics colloquy and EUROCK
2004 rock engineering theory and practice. Salzburg; 2004. p. 167–70.
[4] Miura K. Design and construction of mountain tunnels in Japan. Tunnel
Underground Space Technol 2003;18:115–26.
[5] Gibbs PW, Lowrie J, Kieffer DS, McQueen L. M5 east—design of a shallow soft
ground shotcrete motorway tunnel. In: Proceedings of the 28th ITA-AITES
world tunneling congress. Sydney; March 2002.
[6] Zienkiewicz OC, Pande GN. Time-dependent multilaminate model of rocks—a
numerical study of deformation and failure of rock masses. Int J Numer Anal
Methods Geomech 1997;1:219–47.
[7] Bernaud D. Numerical simulation of the convergence of a bolt-supported
tunnel through a homogenization method. Int J Numer Anal Methods
Geomech 1995;19:267–88.
[8] Bae GJ, Shin HS, Sicilia C, Choi YG, Lim JJ. Homogenization framework for
three-dimensional elastoplastic finite element analysis of a grouted pipe-
roofing reinforcement method for tunneling. Int J Numer Anal Methods
Geomech 2005;29:1–24.
[9] Kotake N, Yamamoto Y, Oka K. Design for umbrella method based on
numerical analysis and field measurements. In: Proceedings of the tunnelling
and ground conditions. Cairo; 1994. p. 501–8.
[10] Song KI, Cho GC, Sim YJ, Lee IM. Optimization of a pre-improvement support
system for large underground excavation. Tunnel Underground Space Technol
2006;21(3-4):374.
[11] Harazaki I, Aono H, Matsuda A, Hakoishi Y. Field observation of large tunnel
supported by umbrella method: case of Maiko Tunnel in Kobe, Japan. In:
Proceedings of the world tunnel congress ‘98 on tunnels and metropolises.
Sao Paulo; 1998. p. 1009–14.
[12] Kim DY, Lee HS, Chun BS, Jung JJ. A study on the field tests and development
of quantitative two-dimensional numerical analysis method for evaluation of
effects of umbrella arch method. Tunnel Tech 2009;11(1):57–70 [in Korean].
[13] Mashimo H, Ishimura T. Evaluation of the load on shield tunnel lining in
gravel. Tunnel Underground Space Technol 2003;18:233–41.
150 K.-I. Song et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 59 (2013) 139–150

[14] Chang SB, Moon HKA. Study on the quantitative evaluation of the load
distribution factors considering the design conditions of tunnel—especially
for the ring-cut excavation method. J Korean Geotech Soc 1998;14(5):5–15
[in Korean].
[15] Oreste PP. Analysis of structural interaction in tunnels using the
convergence–confinement approach. Tunnel Underground Space Technol
2003;18(4):347–63.
[16] Smith IM, Griffiths DV. Programming the finite element method. 4th ed. New
York: Wiley; 2004.
[17] MIDAS-GTS. Geotechnical & tunnel analysis system. MIDAS Information
Technology; 2012.
[18] MIDAS-CIVIL. Online manual. MIDAS Information Technology; 2006.