Track 4 - Technical Forums I
NATM T
NATM unneling In Soft R
Tunneling ock In San Diego: Integrating
Rock
Design And Construction
Dave Ragland, P.E. John Hawley, PE
Metropolitan Transit Hatch Mott MacDonald
Development Board Pleasanton, CA
San Diego, CA
ABSTRACT
The New Austrian Tunneling Method (NATM) was
formulated almost 40 years ago but is still a matter of
controversy and misunderstanding, with disagreements even
amongst its practitioners as to its definition. NATM is often
presented to owners as a solution to subsurface construction
problems, but without a full explanation of its limitations, or
the appropriate contractual and construction management
provisions that are necessary for its success.
The 11 km (7-mile) extension of the Mission Valley East
Light Rail Line includes a tunnel connection through the
heart of San Diego State University. The west approach
consists of a twin-track New Austrian Tunneling Method
(NATM) tunnel connecting a cut-and-cover box section to
the underground station. Construction started in July 2001.
The NATM tunneling excavation and primary liner
installation commenced at the beginning of May 2002 and
was completed in December 2002.
The paper explains NATM and its implications from the
practical perspective of an owner building a rail transit line
in a difficult setting, in this case a congested and very busy
university campus. It presents the original design, the
contractor’s proposed revisions to the excavation sequence,
re-design analysis, the role of the designer’s representative
on site, and the results of construction monitoring. The
monitoring results are compared with the values obtained
from the design analysis, taking account of the encountered
ground conditions, and drawing parallels and conclusions
that will benefit future projects.
INTRODUCTION
The San Diego Metropolitan Transit Development
Board’s (MTDB’s) Mission Valley East project is an 11-km
(7-mile), four station extension to the existing Blue Line,
connecting to the Orange Line at Grossmont Station. The
estimated construction value is around $360 million including
right-of-way purchase and revenue vehicles, of which the
Federal Transit Administration is providing 80% of the
1
Structures
Esther Casson
Mott MacDonald
Croydon, UK
funding, with the remaining 20% from state sales tax
revenues.
The underground section below the San Diego State
University (SDSU) campus shown in Figure 1 will be the
first underground section of the San Diego system, with a
construction contract valued at $85 million. Hatch Mott
MacDonald (HMM) was responsible for the design and
preparation of contract documents for the tunnel elements
of the alignment as specialist tunneling consultant to URS/
BRW the prime consultant and, as this paper describes,
provided engineering support during construction.
The original concept for the SDSU segment was for
twin 1,150-meter (3,800-foot) tunnels excavated using a tunnel
boring machine and lined with precast concrete segments
installed behind the cutter head. Changes to the alignment
to reduce the impact on University buildings substantially
reduced the length of the tunnel section to 330 m (1,080 ft).
The remainder of the loop through the campus, including
the SDSU station itself, was constructed in cut-and-cover.
The ground conditions and the reduced mined tunnel
length, much of which lies above the water table, supported
the use of the sequential excavation methods and support
techniques commonly known as the New Austrian Tunneling
Method (NATM). This approach allowed a switch from twin
single-track bores to a single bore twin-track configuration,
allowing a station configuration that better suited the existing
vehicles and saving cost. However, the tunneling method
selected had implications for construction management and
the role of designer during construction to ensure no risk to
successful completion.
THE NEW AUSTRIAN TUNNELING
METHOD (NATM)
The New Austrian Tunneling Method (NATM) was first
propounded by the Austrian Professors Rabcewicz and
Müller in the 1950’s, and was published in articles in English
in the 1960’s and 70’s (1, 2). Its most obvious feature is that
initial ground support is applied early to control deformations
and prevent loosening around the advancing tunnel heading
Track 4 - Technical Forums I Structures

Figure1. Alignment under San Diego State University.

2
Track 4 - Technical Forums I
and, where necessary, the exposed face. This seeks to
preserve as much of the inherent strength of the ground as
possible. Combined with a stress-efficient tunnel geometry,
this leads to a less massive and rigid support system, usually
using shotcrete in conjunction with rockbolts, mesh or fiber
reinforcement, and/or lattice girders. Although shotcrete is
not the only means of complying with NATM principles, the
development of shotcrete technology, in particular
mechanized equipment for rapid application, has strongly
promoted and expanded use of the NATM in tunnels.
Many tunnelers dislike the term NATM, saying it is
neither new, Austrian, or a “method”. What is clear is that
tunnel design is not a deterministic process and therefore
reference ground conditions are used to assess support
requirements, and observations are necessary to ensure
compatibility of the support system and ground behavior.
For this reason, the NATM is fundamentally an
“Observational Method” referred to elsewhere as the
“Sequential Excavation Method” (SEM) (by SoundTransit
in Seattle) and the “Sprayed Concrete Lining” (SCL) method
(by the Health and Safety Executive in the U.K.). Concerns
have been expressed (3) about some of the sweeping claims
made about the superiority of NATM over all other tunneling
methods. Such arguments detract from experience which has
shown that NATM principles applied properly during
construction offer real benefits in terms of cost, schedule
and safety.
The essence of the NATM is that it takes account of the
ground properties and ground/structure interaction in the
design and construction of the tunnel. Allowing for
composite action better reflects actual behavior during
excavation compared to the more traditional method of
calculating loads and then applying the loads to structural
design of liner. As depicted by the plot of ground load against
radial deformation at the tunnel extrados shown in Figure 2,
loosely based on the Fenner-Pacher curve (4), some relaxation
is inevitable and controlled relaxation is desirable. As the
support deforms, the stresses in the ground redistribute so
the ground is partially self-supporting and loads on the
support are reduced (point A). Inevitably, too much
deformation allows loosening and weakening of the ground
and increasing loads on the support system leading to the
possibility of collapse.
The NATM approach to tunneling has a number of
consequences:
• Evaluating the ground properties is an essential
part of the design. Ground mass properties cannot
be derived accurately from relatively small samples
and can vary, so monitoring during construction is
needed to verify, and if necessary adjust, the design.
3
Structures
• Because of the need to control ground relaxation
and the potential need to vary the support,
shotcrete is almost always used as part of the initial
support, either plain, mesh-reinforced or fiber-
reinforced. Lattice girders are often used to provide
some early support (for safety rather than structural
reasons), sometimes in conjunction with wire mesh,
and enforce an accurate tunnel profile. Where
applicable, rockbolts or dowels are used to improve
ground behavior and promote composite action.
• NATM is often applied to larger tunnels where
considerations of practicality and face stability force
a staged excavation. Each stage of the excavation
sequence has to be designed, and to control ground
relaxation it is often important to “close the ring”
on a stable tunnel shape within a certain time or
prescribed distance from the face. For shallow
tunnels in high risk urban areas, the control of
surface settlements is paramount and the selected
multiple heading arrangement can strongly
influence performance.
• In order to deal with a range of anticipated ground
conditions and behaviors, the design usually
includes a number of different excavation and
support sequences together with guidance as to
their application. In addition, supplemental support
measures are designed, to be available in case of
need.
Tunnel Design
The NATM tunnel begins at Scripps Terrace, where it
connects with the cut and cover section. From Scripps
Terrace, the 330 m (1,080 ft) long tunnel sweeps a curve
beneath the southwestern corner of the University Campus
and finishes at its connection into a piled wall of the new
underground station. The tunnel is driven uphill at a constant
grade of 4.2%, but due to the steep slopes on the campus,
ground cover varies considerably. Although the tunnel
alignment was modified when the construction method was
changed to reduce the risk of tunneling to the University,
the zone of influence of the tunnel still encompasses a number
of surface structures.
The dynamic envelope requirements for the trolley, the
mechanical and electrical space requirements and the
emergency walkway envelopes were used to develop the
11.24 m (36 ft-10 in.) wide and 8.84 m (29 ft-0 in.) high
excavated profile of the tunnel, as shown in Figure 3.
Track 4 - Technical Forums I Structures

Figure 2. Plot of Ground Load against Lining Yield (based on Fenner–Pacher Curve).

4
Track 4 - Technical Forums I Structures

Figure 3. Tunnel Cross Section.

5
Track 4 - Technical Forums I
The tunnel is constructed entirely within Stadium
Conglomerate, a massive gravel and cobble conglomerate
with variable levels of weak cementation. These ground
conditions, and a water table that is largely below the tunnel
crown as shown in Figure 4, favor the use of the NATM.
Although extensive information was available on the
geological setting of San Diego State University Campus,
there was limited experience of tunneling on the Stadium
Conglomerate formation and it was therefore essential to
consider the worst credible ground conditions in the design.
Recent academic research has shown that it is important to
consider the stiffness of the ground at very small strains
when predicting ground movements and ground loads on
tunnels. A comparison of the geophysical survey results
and plate bearing tests confirmed that the stiffness of the
Stadium Conglomerate was significantly higher at small
strains than at large strains. A hyperbolic stress-strain
constitutive model for the ground was calibrated against the
plate bearing tests and then used in the numerical analyses
for the design. Piezometers suggested the presence of
perched and/or transient groundwater over more than 50%
of the tunnel length.
Numerical methods of analysis (FLAC Version 3.4) were
used to model different excavation sequences and predict
the performance of the tunnel lining in terms of the stresses
and deformations. For each excavation sequence, the surface
settlement trough, peak settlement and associated volume
loss were assessed. Three sections along the route were
chosen for analysis to represent the full range of ground
conditions that could be encountered during construction:
sloping ground near the portal; typical ground cover; and
minimum ground cover with sensitive utilities near the station.
Various options for excavation and support sequences were
investigated.
Three excavation and support types were chosen,
designed in detail and specified for sections of the alignment
based on:
• Variations in the ground cover above the tunnel
crown
• Level of the groundwater
• Expected stand-up time and other ground
parameters
• Location of surface structures and utilities
• Estimated volume losses and predicted settlements
• Space requirements for typical equipment used in
NATM construction
• Interface connection details at both ends of the
tunnel
6
Structures
The three excavation support types are shown in Figure
5. The lining comprised a 50 mm (2 in.) initial shotcrete sealing
layer, 2 layers of wire mesh, a lattice girder for profile control,
and two layers of shotcrete to complete the 300 mm (12 in.)
thick primary lining. The face was supported with 50mm (2
in.) of shotcrete. The design permitted, using the results of
the monitoring, adjustments to the sequences to be made
based on actual behavior.
• Excavation Sequence 1 (split top heading and invert)
was the ‘standard’ sequence for the tunnel and
could be modified to a full top heading excavation,
subject to agreement of the Engineer, should ground
conditions encountered during construction be
better than those used for design.
• Excavation Sequence 2 (side gallery and
enlargement) was for use where the water table is
above the crown of the tunnel which could locally
promote fast raveling or flowing behavior of the
poorly graded sand-dominated matrix layers.
• Excavation Sequence 3 (twin side gallery and central
pillar) was for ground cover of less than 6 m
(20 ft) and where the tunnel passes beneath key
utilities.
Care was taken in the geometrical layout of the
excavation sequences to minimize difficulties with transition
between the sequences. It was recognized that local ground
conditions, such as poorly graded sand layers or lenses
could influence the stability of the face, and a range of
additional support measures such as temporary face support,
spiling and canopy tubes, probe drilling and infill shotcrete
were all specified in the design.
Although the volume loss was calculated to be less
than 0.1% in the FLAC Analysis, reflecting the stiffness and
strength of the Stadium Conglomerate formation, a higher
volume loss of 0.5% was adopted for assessing the effects
of settlement on structures to take account of variations in
construction practice and ground behavior. Structures in
the zone of influence included the Women’s Gym, the
Bleachers at Cox Arena and the Tennis Courts. Close to the
station, where tunnel cover reduced below 8 m (25 ft), the
tunnel passed beneath a number of utilities including
electricity, fiber-optic and telephone cables; steam pipes and
chilled water pipes.
The design recommended that sensitive utilities be
relocated or protected and this was carried out as part of an
advanced utilities contract. Even with the conservative
assumption of 0.5% volume loss, the analysis concluded
that risk of damage to the structures was negligible or slight.
Track 4 - Technical Forums I Structures

Figure 4. Geological Profile.

Figure 5. Excavation Sequences - Original Design.

7
Track 4 - Technical Forums I
Therefore, no other positive damage mitigation measures
were proposed. Condition surveys were carried out before
construction commenced and a monitoring system was
developed to ensure early detection of any unexpected
movement.
The arrangement of monitoring instrumentation was
designed to monitor surface settlements, subsurface ground
movements and convergence of primary lining. Settlement
pins were spaced at 25 m (80 ft) above the center of the
tunnel, with a reduced spacing of 5 m (16 ft) in the low cover
section. Five monitoring arrays were specified perpendicular
to the tunnel axis, comprising settlement pins and combined
borehole extensometers and inclinometers. These were
concentrated at locations identified as being critical in terms
of risk – notably at the Scripps Terrace portal and at the
approach to the station box where there was reduced ground
cover. Convergence monitoring in the tunnel was carried
out with arrays of pins at intervals of 5, 10 or 25 m (16, 33 or
80 ft), as appropriate. The frequency of measurement varied
according to the proximity of the tunnel face, with an
increased frequency when the tunnel was closest.
DESIGNER’S ROLE DURING
CONSTRUCTION
Understanding the risks related to the ground
conditions, and how they influence the approach to design
and the method of construction, are fundamental issues for
the tunnel designer. These are translated into designs which
are usually quite specific in terms of the construction
sequencing and level of support. The NATM, as an
observational method, requires design decisions to be made
during construction in order to optimize the original design
to suit the prevailing ground conditions. This is not a
“design-as-you-go” approach since the original design is
analyzed and detailed in full before the start of construction.
Without continuous representation on site, it is not possible
for the designer to make design decisions in a timely fashion,
or in some cases at all. The designer cannot take responsibility
for the design as it is adjusted or interpreted by the decisions
of others. The importance of the designers’ role in the
construction of tunnels of this type is underscored by the
well-publicized failures at Dulles Airport and at London’s
Heathrow Airport (5) where the lack of involvement by the
designers in construction were seen as major contributing
factors.
The specifications included trigger levels and limit levels
for lining convergence for each support type. Trigger levels
were the expected deformations, and if they were exceeded a
review of ground conditions and lining performance was to
8
Structures
be implemented to determine whether further measures were
required. Limit levels represented the serviceability limit state
of the primary lining, and if exceeded the decision on
implementation of contingency measures would be made in
conjunction with a review of rates of convergence, for which
expected values were also provided.
The contract required the contractor to prepare and
submit an action plan such that implementation of
contingency or remedial measures could be carried out
expeditiously during construction should response levels
be reached or exceeded. The action plan included the
organization of staff responsible for making key decisions
during tunneling; the basis for the implementation of
additional support measures, emergency procedures and
possible contingency measures; and the means of recording
and implementing decisions made regarding the excavation
and support sequence.
There was also a detailed contingency plan with the
names of personnel responsible for implementing emergency
measures, the emergency procedures to be undertaken in
the event of ground loss or instability of heading, and
measures to be taken to protect SDSU structures in the event
that surface settlements might impact SDSU campus facilities
and buildings.
Site meetings were specified to be held daily between
the Contractor, Engineer and the Engineer’s Design
Representative to review face logging and interpretation of
the geological and hydrogeological conditions; monitoring
instrumentation data and trends including surface settlement,
ground deformations and in-tunnel lining deformations;
possible modifications to the support type or excavation
sequence and requirement for additional support measures;
and anticipated work, associated procedures and support
methods to be employed by the Contractor over the next 24
hours. These meetings were to be continued at least until
the installation of the primary lining was complete.
A memorandum of understanding was jointly developed
by the Owner (MTDB), Construction Manager (Washington
Group), Design Lead Consultant (URS/BRW) and Tunnel
Designer (HMM) establishing roles and responsibilities
during the construction of the NATM tunnel, and included
the following ten points:
1. Tunnel designer reviewed and approved the action
plan required under the contract to be prepared by
the contractor.
2. Contractor provided monitoring equipment and
submitted required readings from the monitoring
equipment to the construction manager. These
readings were provided in an electronic format in
accordance with the contract requirements.
Track 4 - Technical Forums I
3. Construction manager reviewed contractor
readings for conformance with action plan and
contract requirements. The level of independent
readings by the construction manager was adjusted
based on the quality of contractor readings but
was not to be less than once per week or as agreed
with the tunnel designer to verify values and trends.
4. Construction manager provided inspectors to
observe the work and to report visually detectable
tunnel deformations.
5. Construction manager transmitted monitoring
readings in an electronic format and inspectors’
daily reports to the tunnel designer.
6. Tunnel designer reviewed and interpreted data.
7. Tunnel designer reviewed and approved changes
to different excavation sequences or selection of
additional support measures within the criteria
established in the contractor’s action plan. If ground
conditions or monitoring results indicated that a
change to the plan or further measures not included
in the contract were necessary, the tunnel designer
would review and approve the contractors
proposals or provide required actions to the
construction manager.
8. Construction manager issued direction to the
contractor per the tunnel designer’s instructions.
(If instructions resulted in a change to the contract
price, construction manager would inform MTDB
prior to giving direction to the contractor).
9. Construction manager and tunnel designer jointly
kept MTDB informed of any action to be taken that
resulted in a deviation from the contractor’s
approved action plan.
10. The tunnel designer’s representative was based in
the construction manager’s field office and
provided a weekly report to the construction
manager, MTDB and any other parties as required.
Maximizing the benefit of this role for the project
depended on how the tunnel designer’s representative
integrated with the construction management team. The aim
was to work as a “single team” in order to deal with
construction needs in a responsive and expeditious manner
and allow the experience and judgment of the tunnel designer
to be available on a daily basis. The daily review process
facilitated this in a positive way.
CONSTRUCTION AND MONITORING
After bid and award of the contract, a number of design
changes were made, which fell into three main categories.
9
Structures
The first group of design changes were due to additional
working restrictions at the portal that were agreed with the
University after notice to proceed, and are not discussed in
this paper. The second group of design changes were
requested by the contractor to facilitate and improve
excavation progress, and mitigate delays arising from the
portal changes. The third group were design decisions made
during construction to optimize the original design according
to the prevailing ground conditions.
In the second category of design changes, the principal
change came from a suggestion by the contractor that the
top heading should be constructed first, all the way from the
portal to the station, with the bench and invert constructed
later. The contractor believed that this option would offer
faster rates of progress and other logistical advantages. The
redesign for this option was completed by HMM before the
start of works, and the revised excavation sequences are
shown in Figure 6.
In terms of the third category – design changes during
construction – these were related either to the choice of
excavation sequence (from the three sequences specified in
the design) or minor modification to support and excavation.
As expected, the actual lengths of each excavation sequence
differed from the design as detailed in Table 1. In general the
ground encountered was both more stable and drier than
the site investigation had indicated. This permitted the
majority of the tunnel to be constructed in a sequence with
a full face top heading excavation (the modified Excavation
Sequence 1). Also Excavation Sequence 2 was adopted
instead of Excavation Sequence 3 for the low cover section,
taking account of the drier and more stable ground, and the
fact that the sensitive utilities had been relocated or
protected.
Minor modifications were made to the sequence in which
the support was applied to suit the contractor’s preferred
way of working. However, the completed support was as
designed.
The Daily Review Meetings were held as specified every
day, after an inspection of the tunnel. Problems were
discussed and solutions developed in a collaborative
atmosphere. At the end of the brief meeting the “Excavation
& Support Sheet” as shown in Figure 7 for the next section
of work was agreed by all parties and issued. Minutes of the
meetings were taken, and signed by all present.
The Excavation & Support Sheet acted as an excellent
control and communication tool, defining the manner of
excavation and the support measures in clear and simple
terms, and was distributed to the contractor’s key staff (such
as shift engineer and walking boss) and the construction
Track 4 - Technical Forums I Structures

Figure 6. Excavation Sequences – Revised Design.

Table 1. Percentage of tunnel constructed in each Excavation Sequence.

10
Track 4 - Technical Forums I Structures

Figure 7. Excavation & Support Sheet.

11
Track 4 - Technical Forums I Structures

supervision team. Changes could be communicated quickly ENDNOTES

and unambiguously by this means. Where necessary,
extracts from drawings or photographs were appended to 1.Rabcewicz L.v.: “The new Austrian tunneling method”
the Excavation & Support Sheet. Water Power, part 1 November 1964 pp. 511-515, Part 2
Major changes – such as the use of Excavation (January 1965) pp. 19-24
Sequence 2 in place of Sequence 3 - were discussed in more 2.Rabcewicz L.v. and Golser J.: “Principles dimensioning the
formal meetings at which senior staff from all parties was support system for the new Austrian tunneling method”
present. Water Power (March 1973) pp. 88-93
In terms of the performance of the tunnel lining, the 3.Muir Wood A.: “New Tunneling Methods” Letter to Water
monitoring results for lining convergence were all within the Power (June 1973)
specified trigger limits. No problems were encountered with 4.Pacher F.: “The development of the New Austrian Tunneling
surface settlement, with the actual average volume loss being Method and the main features in design work and
0.1% in line with the calculations. construction” 16th Symposium on Rock Mechanics
(Minneapolis, 1975) pp. 223-232
CONCLUSIONS 5.HSE “Safety of New Austrian Tunnelling Method (NATM)
Tunnels”, Health & Safety Executive (HMSO, Norwich,
NATM, whether or not referred to as such, has become 1996)
the standard approach for constructing larger tunnels in
weak ground in cases where the use of a tunnel shield or
tunnel boring machine is inappropriate or uneconomic. For
the Mission Valley East tunnel under San Diego State
University it allowed the twin tracks to be accommodated in
a single, non-circular (and hence more efficient) cross
section, and provided excellent control of ground movements
to protect the university buildings adjacent to the alignment.
The low mobilization costs, compared with using a tunneling
shield, suited the short length of the tunnel.
Having the designer represented on site during tunnel
excavation and initial support facilitated the speedy resolution
of design issues arising from construction constraints at the
portal, review and response to submittals, and adjustments
to construction sequences to better suit the contractor’s
chosen working methods. This was particularly important in
order to mitigate potential delays arising from working
constraints imposed by the university beyond those
envisaged and included in the contract. The designer’s
presence during construction was a factor in overcoming
these delays. The approach to managing NATM
construction and the allocation of responsibilities developed
for this Mission Valley East tunnel under San Diego State
University can serve as a model for future projects.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Special thanks are due to Siegfried Fassmann, P.E.,

project manager for the prime consultant URS/BRW, for
facilitating the design, supporting HMM’s role during
construction, and contributing to this paper.

12