Proceedings of the World Tunnel Congress 2014 – Tunnels for a better Life. Foz do Iguaçu, Brazil.

The role of temporary support in the design of the final lining

P. Fortsakis, N. Marigoudis, M. Kavvadas
National Technical University of Athens, Greece

ABSTRACT: Tunnel final lining is often designed to fully undertake all loads during tunnel service
life, such as loads from the surrounding ground, water pressure, live, accidental and seismic loads,
while neglecting any contribution of the temporary support. The role of the temporary support
measures in the final lining loading and design, even if they are finally deactivated or removed, is
significant, since they affect the stress history in the vicinity of the tunnel. This paper describes the
long-term performance of temporary support measures based on data from literature and investigates
via numerical analyses the load transfer from temporary support to final lining as well as the role of
face treatment measures to the final lining loading.

1 INTRODUCTION separated in four main categories according to

Tunnel final lining is designed to satisfy the
requirements of performance during the tunnel
service life. Specifically, the scope of final
lining in road and railway tunnels is to satisfy
the requirements of safety (by undertaking
acceptably all possible loads that may be
imposed), serviceability (e.g. water-proofing,
drainage, fire resistance - fire protection) and
aesthetics.
The loading and design criteria of final lining
are mainly determined by the construction
method. In conventional tunnelling, final lining
consists of unreinforced or reinforced concrete
(fiber or steel reinforcement) or fiber-reinforced
shotcrete. It is constructed inside the temporary
support shell, which has already reached
equilibrium, and therefore it is not immediately
loaded by the surrounding geomaterial. On the
other hand, in mechanized tunnelling, final
lining usually consists of prefabricated concrete
segments which are erected immediately after
the excavation. In the latter case, the final lining
will be loaded by additional loads, such as the
potential convergence of the tunnel section and
the erection loads. Final lining loads can be
1
their nature and variation in time:
 Permanent loads: loads from the surrounding
geomaterial (ground pressure and wedge
loads), self-weight, loads from existing or
future structures, hydrostatic pressure in
tunnels under the groundwater table with no
permanent draining system.
 Live loads: vehicle / train loads, temperature
loads, piston effect for railway tunnels,
internal pressure in hydraulic tunnels.
 Accidental loads: explosion, fire, traffic
collision, water pressure in tunnels with
drainage system (accidental blockage) which
should be applied symmetrically and
asymmetrically on the tunnel section.
 Seismic loads.
Frequently the most significant permanent
load is the load imposed directly or indirectly by
the surrounding ground. Direct loads are
developed after the final lining construction;
they are associated with time-dependent
behaviour of the geomaterial (creep, swelling,
consolidation) and are distributed to the
temporary support and the final lining, based on
their relative stiffness and the properties of their
 Proceedings of the World Tunnel Congress 2014 – Tunnels for a better Life. Foz do Iguaçu, Brazil.

interface. Indirect loads are initially undertaken Thus, a significant percentage of the
by temporary support (only in conventional construction cost corresponds to measures with
tunnelling) and eventually are transferred to the limited technical life. Therefore, a reasonable
final lining, when temporary support becomes consideration is that a different design approach,
ineffective during tunnel service life. Therefore, which takes into account the temporary support
the role of the temporary support measures is during the project service life, could lead to a
significant, even if they are finally removed or decrease of the total cost. More specifically, an
deactivated, since they affect the stress history improvement of the quality control e.g. of the
and determine the equilibrium state after the shotcrete construction, so as to meet quality
completion of the excavation. requirements of a permanent structure, could
The assumption of temporary support lead to smaller final lining sections and decrease
degradation although very conservative, is the total cost without any change in the
common in final lining design, due to the performance of the tunnel.
uncertainties and the limited data concerning the This paper addresses the role of the
long-term behaviour of the temporary support, temporary support in the final lining design.
the poor quality control in its construction and Data from the literature and relevant codes are
code requirements. Data from 35 tunnels along presented regarding the long-term behaviour of
the Greek Egnatia Motorway (Marinos et al., the temporary support measures. Additionally,
2012) show that deactivation of temporary using numerical analyses the influence of the
support was a fundamental assumption in all temporary support measures on the final lining
final lining designs. However, specifications loading is described and the load transfer
and design methodologies can be found in mechanism - in case of deactivation of
literature (e.g. Thomas, 2009) and codes for the temporary support - is illustrated.
analysis and construction of shotcrete primary
lining as a permanent structure.
Figure 1 illustrates that the cost of final 2 SUPPORT SHELL: SHOTCRETE - STEEL
lining (assuming deactivation of the temporary SETS
support) varies from 10% to 60% of the
temporary support cost (the prices include the Shotcrete has been used more often as a
excavation cost). The high ratios, over 60%, permanent structure compared to rock bolts and
mainly correspond to light temporary support steel sets and therefore there is more available
sections, where the final lining design was data. In the “Report Nο 005. Shotcrete for rock
defined by the minimum acceptable values of support. A summary report on state-of-the-art”
the codes and not by the structural analysis. (ITA, 2010) it is described that some countries
such as Brazil, Czech Republic, Norway, Russia
100% 60% 40% 20% and Sweden have adopted shotcrete as
Final lining cost in 2013 prices (€/m)

9000
permanent structure in specific projects,
8000
whereas a complete record of shotcrete use in
7000 permanent structures is presented by Franzen et
6000 al. (2001).
5000 10% Bakogiannis (2004) suggests that the
4000 shotcrete shell can be taken into account during
3000 the tunnel service life if (a) its main scope is the
protection against small structural failures and
2000
not the restraint of potential convergence, (b)
1000 Data from 307 temporary support the reliability control requirements are satisfied,
and final lining sections
0 (c) the total deformations are less than a critical
0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 value of 0.8% and (d) the induced stresses do
Temporary support cost in 2013 prices (€/m) not exceed 70% of the design strength.
According to Yiouta-Mitra et al. (2010) the
Figure 1. Construction cost of temporary support and final
lining sections (Data from: TIAS Database, Marinos et main reasons for the long-term deactivation of
al., 2012). The 2013 values have been calculated from the shotcrete are the reduced strength, the
2004 values using the inflation rate of HICP for the Euro construction methodology, the stress and
Area (http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/, update deformation field and the shotcrete creep
15/11/2013). behaviour, which depends on shotcrete
2
 Proceedings of the World Tunnel Congress 2014 – Tunnels for a better Life. Foz do Iguaçu, Brazil.
composition, structure dimensions, loads and
shotcrete strength at the “first” loading.
Franzen et al. (2001) present the main
conclusions of the “Working Group on
Shotcrete Use” of ΙΤΑ. The authors highlight
the lack of data from experimental tests and
tunnel projects for shotcrete long-term
performance. It is also mentioned that one of the
main difficulties in studying shotcrete durability
is the variation of many factors among different
cases (e.g. exposure of shotcrete into different
types of quality and strength reducing processes,
shotcrete exposure resistance capacity in
relation to the exposure processes). In order to
facilitate the assessment of long-term behaviour
of shotcrete a matrix for the storage of
durability data is proposed.
Thomas (2009) presents a comprehensive
design approach and design requirements for the
dimensioning and construction of permanent
shotcrete linings. Specific values are proposed
for the shotcrete properties such as water/binder
ratio<0.45 and compressive strength>30-
40MPa. Additionally, different methodologies
are proposed for the simulation of shotcrete, if it
is assumed partially or fully deactivated.
The compressive strength of high
performance shotcrete in respect with the
additives and the accelerators that were used is
studied by Lee et al. (2005), aiming to satisfy
the specification of C50. Furthermore Lee et al.
(2006) present results from accelerated
durability tests consisting of freeze-thaw tests,
rapid carbonation tests and accelerated chloride
penetration tests on high performance shotcrete.
Regarding the steel sets (HEB, Lattice
Girder) the main reason for the long-term
deactivation is the corrosion by the underground
adverse conditions. Moreover the steel sets are
usually not embedded correctly in the shotcrete
shell and the requirements of a permanent
composite structure are not satisfied.
Yet, if the temporary support shell is
considered part of the permanent structural
system its interaction with the final lining
should be taken into account. Between the two
shells, a drainage layer and a waterproof
membrane are usually placed, decreasing the
shear stiffness and strength of the interface (see
Hoek et al., 2008; Thomas, 2009). However, in
conventional tunnelling the excavation surface
and consequently the shotcrete surface is wavy
increasing significantly the macroscopic
roughness of the temporary support - final lining
interface. The two limit states of full and zero
3
shear transfer may lead to a significant
difference in the final lining internal forces.
In case that both structures are modeled as
beam or shell elements, the actual geometry
(distance of the structural members’ center line
from the excavation surface) should be modeled
to optimize the calculation of the internal forces.
If a structural analysis is carried out only for the
final lining, simulating the geomaterial with
imposed loads and radial springs, the stiffness
of the springs should be increased due to the
temporary support shell on the extrados of the
final lining. This increase can be estimated from
the Figure 2 as a function of the tunnel section
as well as the rock mass and the support shell
properties (Fortsakis, 2012). These curves are
based on the convergence - confinement
method, assuming hydrostatic initial stress field,
two materials around the tunnel section (a) a
ring of elastic material that corresponds to the
support and (b) an infinite surrounding
geomaterial and no slip at the interfaces. El
Naggar et al. (2008) have proposed a general
solution for the calculation of displacements and
internal forces in composite liners assuming
non-hydrostatic stress field and both slip and no
slip at the interfaces.
d/R = 0.20 d/R = 0.18
100.0
Et: Deformation modulus of d/R = 0.16
90.0 temporary support shell
d/R = 0.14
Eg: Deformation modulus of the
80.0 surrounding geomaterial
d: Thickness of temporary d/R = 0.12
70.0 support shell
R: Excavation section radius d/R = 0.10
60.0
Keq / Kref
50.0 d/R = 0.08
40.0 d/R = 0.06
30.0
d/R = 0.04
20.0
10.0
d/R = 0.02
0.0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
Et / Eg
Figure 2. Calculation of the increased axial stiffness of the
radial springs around the final lining taking into account
the temporary support shell. The initial values of the axial
stiffness (Kref) can be estimated by the slope of a typical
elastic convergence - confinement curve.
The load from the surrounding geomaterial,
although permanent during the tunnel service
life, is not continuously imposed on the final
lining. Since in some cases its action may be
favourable for the final lining dimensioning, it
should not be incorporated in all the load
combinations.
 Proceedings of the World Tunnel Congress 2014 – Tunnels for a better Life. Foz do Iguaçu, Brazil.

Table 1. 2D numerical analyses parameters.

Parameters Symbol Range of values Units
Overburden height H 100 m
Tunnel radius R 5.0 m
Full face excavation (1 phase)
Excavation phases
Partial excavation (2 phases)
Excavation step x 1.00m m
Geostatic stress ratio K 0.5, 1.0, 1.5 -
Geomaterial unit weight γ 0.025 MN/m3
GSI: Geological Strength Index
GSI 10 - 50 -
(Marinos & Hoek 2000, Marinos et al., 2005)
Intact rock uniaxial compressive strength σci 6 - 20 MPa
Rock mass deformation modulus (Hoek et al., 2002) Em 245 - 4472 MPa
Shotcrete thickness dsh 0.20, 0.40 m
Shotcrete deformation modulus Esh 20.0 GPa
Final lining thickness dFL 0.40, 0.60 m
Final lining deformation modulus EFL 29.0 GPa
Rock bolts length Lb 8.0 m
Rock bolts diameter db 25 mm
Rock bolts capacity fs 500 MPa
Rock bolts deformation modulus Es 200 GPa

The numerical analyses have been carried out
using the Finite Element code ABAQUS. The
tunnel section was assumed to be circular with
diameter D=10m and the overburden height
H=10D=100m. The surrounding rock mass was
simulated as an isotropic linearly elastic -
perfectly plastic material following the Mohr-
Coulomb failure criterion with quadrilateral, 4-
noded solid elements. Yet, the rock mass
properties were initially quantified using the
parameters of Hoek-Brown failure criterion
(GSI, σci, mi), since it describes better the
behaviour of rock materials and the equivalent
parameters were calculated according to Hoek et
al. (2002).
The shotcrete shell was modeled as an
isotropic linearly elastic material with 2-noded
beam elements and the rock bolts were modeled
subscript “m” indicates the average value
around the section.
In the case of full face excavation the steps of
the numerical analyses were: (a) geostatic stress
(b) simulation of the preconvergence (c)
excavation and activation of the temporary
support (d) activation of the final lining and (e)
deactivation of the temporary support. It is
noted that the deactivation of the whole
shotcrete shell in one step, may not be realistic
or conservative assumption, since different
sections of it may be deteriorated with random
sequence resulting to locally imposed loads.
7D = 70m
7D = 70m

as isotropic linearly elastic - perfectly plastic

material with 2-noded truss elements. The range
of the numerical analyses parameters are
13D = 130m

summarized in Table 1.
The rock mass deconfinement due to face
advance was estimated via the methodology Excavation section
proposed by Chern et al. (1998). The numerical
6D = 60m

model (Figure 3) was constructed so as to allow

the simulation of full face or partial excavation.
The main parameters and symbols that are used
in the present paper are: po,m: mean geostatic
stress at the level of the tunnel,
po,m=0.5(1+K)γΗ, σc: geomaterial uniaxial 14D=140m
compressive strength in terms of Mohr-
Coulomb, psh: load on shotcrete shell and pFL: Figure 3. Numerical model for the 2D analyses.
final lining load at the last analysis step. The
4
 Proceedings of the World Tunnel Congress 2014 – Tunnels for a better Life. Foz do Iguaçu, Brazil.

Figure 4 illustrates the distribution of the initial and the final equilibrium points.
ratio pFL,m/psh,m as a function of the geotechnical Moreover, decrease of the preconvergence,
conditions ratio σc/po,m. In all cases, final lining results to smaller percentage of load transfer,
load is smaller than shotcrete load, since the since it moves the shotcrete and final lining
deactivation of shotcrete abolishes the existing curves to the left of the diagram where the slope
equilibrium, and additional displacements are of the rock mass characteristic curve is higher. It
developed until the new equilibrium between has also been proved using simple geometrical
the geomaterial and the final lining is reached. principles that in the case of elastic response of
In the range of unfavourable geotechnical the surrounding rock mass the ratio between the
conditions (low values of the geotechnical final lining and the shotcrete load is independent
conditions ratio σc/po,m) final lining load is equal of the preconvergence values.
to shotcrete load and as the geotechnical It is evident that in the case of temporary
conditions are improved the pFL,m/psh,m ratio support long-term deactivation, the increase of
decreases until a minimum value shotcrete thickness leads to a “double” cost
pFL,m/psh,m~0.40. It is also evident that increase increase, since it will lead to higher loads on the
of the final lining stiffness leads to larger final lining.
percentage of load transfer.
1.20
1.10
1.00
0.90
0.80
pFL,m / psh,m

0.70
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20 dsh = 20cm, dFL = 60cm
0.10 dsh = 40cm, dFL = 40cm
0.00
0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00
σc / p o,m

Figure 4. Distribution of the ratio pFL,m/psh,m as a function

of the geotechnical conditions ratio σc/po,m for two Figure 5. Example of the shotcrete load transfer to final
different combinations of shotcrete and final lining lining through the convergence - confinement curves for
thickness (full face excavation). two different cases of geotechnical conditions.

The geostatic stress ratio (K) strongly affects The only change in the numerical analyses
the total displacements distribution and the steps in the case of sequential excavation is that
plastic zone around the tunnel section and the excavation and activation of temporary
consequently the values of the support load and support for the upper and lower part of the
bolt axial forces. Yet, its role to the load transfer section are simulated in two different steps. This
has been proved insignificant, since all the procedure alters the distribution and decreases
parameters which were adopted are normalized the values of the average load (up to 40%) and
and both the numerator and the denominator are increases the eccentricity of the internal forces
“equally” influenced by the initial stress field. in the concrete section (e=M/N), as it is shown
The mechanism of the load transfer is in Figures 6 and 7. Increased eccentricity values
illustrated in Figure 5 using the convergence - may lead to a significant decrease of the design
confinement curves. In the case of favourable reliability especially in unreinforced final lining
geotechnical conditions the rock mass sections (Fortsakis et al., 2013b).
characteristic curve is steeper, which means that The mechanism of load transfer (Figure 8) is
the load decrease until the new equilibrium qualitatively the same with the one described for
point is relatively large. On the other hand in the the full face excavation since the range of the
case of unfavourable geotechnical conditions, pFL,m/psh,m ratio values remains almost the same
the curvature of the characteristic curve (0.45 - 1.04).
decreases the relative distance between the
5
 Proceedings of the World Tunnel Congress 2014 – Tunnels for a better Life. Foz do Iguaçu, Brazil.

1.20
3 LONG-TERM EFFECT OF ROCK BOLTS
pFL,m (Sequential) / psh,m (Full face)

1.10
1.00
0.90
Rock bolts are often assumed to eventually
0.80 become ineffective by corrosion due to ground
0.70 water and poor protection by grout. An
0.60 additional factor that could lead to rock-bolt
0.50 unloading is creep of the surrounding ground,
0.40
which can be important in the case of weak
0.30
0.20
geomaterials under high overburden. Since
dsh = 20cm, dFL = 60cm
0.10
inward displacement of the face plate is fully
dsh = 40cm, dFL = 40cm
0.00 restrained by the final lining, any creep in the
0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00
surrounding ground reduces the frictional force
σc / p o,m
along the grout-ground interface thus reducing
Figure 6. Comparison of average final lining load for the the axial force of the rock-bolt.
cases of full face and sequential excavation. The contribution of the rock bolts as a
temporary support measure has been described
0.125
Full face excavation
in the literature using analytical and numerical
Average ecentricity of internal

Sequential excavation approaches (e.g. Hudson and Harrison, 2000;

axial force, e=M/(Nh)

0.100 h: Final lining thickness Kolymbas, 2008; Carranza-Torres, 2009).

M: Moment Specifically the construction of rock bolts leads
0.075 N: Axial force
to (a) the reinforcement of the surrounding rock
mass due to the increase of confinement, (b) the
0.050 increase of the support equivalent stiffness and
(c) the decrease of the moments in the shell due
0.025
to the decrease of the free span length.
The numerical model that has been presented
0.000
0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 in the previous section (Figure 3) was also
σc / po,m employed for this category of analyses. Two
different bolt grids (Figure 9) were simulated to
Figure 7. Distribution of the average normalized investigate the role of the in-section distance
eccentricity of the shotcrete internal axial force between the rock bolts. The bolts are activated
e=M/(N×h) as a function of the geotechnical conditions
ratio σc/po,m for full face and sequential excavation. in the same step with the shotcrete shell (full
face excavation) or the upper part of the support
1.20 shell (sequential excavation) and are deactivated
1.10 with the shotcrete shell in the last step after the
1.00 activation of the final lining.
0.90
0.80
pFL,m / psh,m

0.70
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20 dsh = 20cm, dFL = 60cm
0.10 dsh = 40cm, dFL = 40cm
Dense grid, La=8m Sparse grid, La=8m
0.00
0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00
σc / p o,m Figure 9. The two different rock bolt grids simulated in
the numerical analyses. The out of plane distance between
Figure 8. Distribution of the ratio pFL,m/psh,m as a function rock bolts is considered to be equal to the excavation step
of the geotechnical conditions ratio σc/po,m for two (x=1.0m).
different combinations of shotcrete and final lining
thickness (sequential excavation). The shotcrete and final lining parameters
have been presented in Table 1. The bolts length
was Lb=8.0 m, the bolts diameter db=25mm, the
ultimate tensile capacity fs=500MPa and the
deformation modulus Es=200GPa.

6

In the case of deactivation of the rock bolts
the rigid final lining shell can offer the
confinement that was applied by them.
However, the main issue regarding the
additional load from the rock bolts is that they
are not installed continuously, but in a specific
grid and the primary load parameter which is
calculated and developed in the construction is
the axial stress. Assuming that the bolts are
deactivated during the tunnel service life, the
concentrated forces are transformed into
additional pressure on final lining until the new
equilibrium point. However, there is not a direct
and simplified way to transform these forces to
pressure since this depends on the geotechnical
conditions and the section stiffness (Fortsakis,
2012).
Figure 10 shows that the installation of the
bolts leads, due to the increase of the temporary
support stiffness, to an additional load in the
final lining up to 40% for the sparse and up to
70% for the dense grid. The role of the bolts is
more significant for low values of σc/po,m.
1.80
pFL,m (Anchors) / pFL,m (No anchors)
1.70
1.60
1.50
1.40
1.30
1.20
1.10
1.00
0.10 0.20 0.30
Figure 10. Comparison of final lining load for the case
with and without bolts in the temporary support section
(sequential excavation).
As discussed in the previous paragraph, the
degradation of different support measures may
evolve in different periods during tunnel service
life. Thus, an additional analysis was carried
out, to investigate the influence of the gradual
deactivation of the bolts. Specifically, after the
activation of the final lining, the shotcrete shell
was removed and thence the bolts were
deactivated in a random pattern.
Figure 11 shows the ratio of the shear force
at a random step divided by the relevant shear
force at the last step where all the bolts have
been deactivated. It is evident that near the
points where a bolt is removed in a specific step
Proceedings of the World Tunnel Congress 2014 – Tunnels for a better Life. Foz do Iguaçu, Brazil.
the shear force increases rapidly and in many
cases it is significantly higher than the
corresponding value in the last step. It is noted
the values are indicative, since they depend on
the parameters of the specific analyses and the
pattern of bolts deactivation.
Desne grid 2m x 1m Figure 11. Comparison of the shear forces in the final
Sparse grid 2m x 1m lining for the case of gradual and full bolts deactivation.
The ratios of shear forces are plotted as absolute values
(GSI=20, σci=20MPa, mi=6). The curves correspond to
different intermediate steps.
4 FACE TREATMENT MEASURES
Two of the most widely used face treatment
measures in conventional tunnelling are the
0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 forepole umbrella and the fibreglass nails. Both
σc / p o,m measures influence directly the load of
temporary support and consequently, based on
the mechanism described in the previous
paragraphs, the load of final lining.
The 3D numerical analyses allow the realistic
calculation of the preconvergence and the
simulation of the stress redistribution due to the
advance of the excavation. The analyses were
carried out assuming a typical horseshoe section
and a Top Heading (excavation area ~60m2) and
Bench (excavation area ~22m2) excavation
procedure. The depth from the surface to the
tunnel crown from the surface is ~12m.
The 3D analyses have also been performed
using the Finite Element code ABAQUS. The
surrounding geomaterial was simulated using 6-
sided, 8-noded three dimensional solid elements
with linearly elastic - perfectly plastic behaviour
following the Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion.
7
 Proceedings of the World Tunnel Congress 2014 – Tunnels for a better Life. Foz do Iguaçu, Brazil.
The support shell was modeled with 4-sided, 4-
noded linearly elastic shell elements, the
forepole umbrella with elastic 2-noded beam
elements (this simulation corresponds to
independent pipes and not a fully grouted arch,
see also the Oke et al., 2013) and the bolts and
the fibreglass nails with elastoplastic 2-noded
truss elements. The 3D numerical model is
illustrated in Figure 12 and the analyses
parameters in Table 2.
60m
60m
Figure 12. The 3D numerical model.
Table 2. 3D numerical analyses parameters.
Parameters Values
K=0.80, c=50kPa, φ=30o,
Geomaterial
Em=100MPa, γ=20kN/m3
Shotcrete Esh=25GPa, dsh=30cm
Bolts Db=25mm, Fult=200kN
Fibreglass nails Fult=300kN, 0.15nails/m2
Forepole umbrella Φ114/101, s=0.40m, L=12m/4m
Excavation step Top Heading: 1.0m, Bench: 2.0m
The main results of the analyses are
summarized in Figure 13. It is evident that in all
cases the face treatment measures lead to an
increase of the tunnel load. The fibreglass nails,
even though they are removed, they increase the
confinement in the advancement core and
consequently affect the stress path around the
tunnel section, resulting to a maximum increase
of the loads 15% for the presented analyses. On
the other hand the forepole umbrella protects the
tunnel face (Prountzopoulos, 2012), since it
reduces the applied vertical pressure on the
8
advancement cores. This leads to a decrease of
the preconvergence and finally to maximum
additional pressure of 11%. However, the
influence of the forepole umbrella is
significantly smaller than the one of the
fibreglass nails. In the case that both measures
are applied the maximum load increase is 19%.
The results depend on the density and the axial
stiffness of the fibreglass nails and the spacing
and bending stiffness of the forepole umbrella.
250.0
Pressure on the temporary suppor shell (kPa)
200.0
150.0
100.0
Fibreglass nails & Forepole Umbrella
No face treatment measures
50.0 Forepole umbrella
Fibreglass nails
Forepole umbrella (no presupport)
0.0
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0
Position around the tunnel section (m)
Vertical distance from the Bench floor
Figure 13. Distribution of pressure applied on the
shotcrete shell of the Top Heading for the different cases
of pre-support measures. The results correspond to a
section where the pressure and displacements have
converged to the final values.
Fortsakis et al. (2013b) carried out 3D
parametric analyses applying distributed
pressure on the tunnel face and concluded that
the increase of the tunnel load (up to 80%)
strongly depends on the applied pressure and the
geomaterial friction angle. Cantieni and
Anagnostou (2011) via axisymmetric analyses
also with applied face pressure resulted to a
maximum increase of the load ~60%.
Oke et al. (2012) carried out 2D numerical
analyses and concluded that the traditional
method of modelling forepole umbrella in 2D
analyses via a homogenous region of improved
material above the tunnel section, does not lead
to realistic distribution of stresses around the
tunnel section. Therefore, an additional analysis
was carried out to evaluate the role of the
forepole umbrella, not as a pre-support measure,
but as a part of the support shell. In this analysis
 Proceedings of the World Tunnel Congress 2014 – Tunnels for a better Life. Foz do Iguaçu, Brazil.
the beam elements of the pipes were added at
the same step with the shotcrete shell. The
calculated displacements around the tunnel and
the applied pressure (Figure 13) are practically
the same with the case where no pre-support
measures were used, which means that the role
of the steel pipes in a transversal section and a
2D numerical analysis in terms of stiffness is
negligible. However, a full 3D simulation of the
forepole umbrella is needed to evaluate also the
microarching that is developed between the
pipes.
5 CONCLUSIONS
Tunnel final lining design is a complex
geotechnical and structural problem, since it
strongly depends on the interaction of the
system surrounding geomaterial - temporary
support - final lining in the case of conventional
tunnelling. Therefore the role of the temporary
support measures, even if they are finally
deactivated or removed, is significant, since
they affect the stress history in the vicinity of
the tunnel. The present paper describes the long-
term performance of temporary support
measures based on data from literature, studies
the load transfer from temporary support to final
lining and the role of face treatment measures to
the final lining loading via numerical analyses.
There is little available data in literature
regarding the performance of shotcrete, steel
sets and rock bolts during tunnel service life.
However, a significant number of projects, in
which the temporary measures were adopted as
long-term support, have been reported in recent
publications. Therefore, these projects should be
monitored very thoroughly, so as to evaluate if
and how these measures can be taken into
account as permanent structures.
The incorporation of the initial shotcrete
shell in the permanent structural system may
lead to a significant decrease of the total cost.
Prerequisites for this approach are guidelines
that will describe the specifications and
construction quality control during the
excavation that corresponds to a permanent
structure.
The assumption of full deactivation of all the
temporary support measures may not always be
realistic or conservative for the dimensioning of
the final lining. The temporary support
measures may be not deactivated, or they can be
fully, partially or locally deactivated. This may
9
lead to a very large number of design scenaria
and a complicated design procedure. Therefore,
based on the particularities of each project, the
critical situations should be chosen to create an
envelope for the final lining design.
In case that long-term deactivation of the
shotcrete shell is assumed, shotcrete load is
completely transferred to the final lining in
unfavourable geotechnical conditions, whereas
this percentage continuously decreases as the
geotechnical conditions are improved
(pFL,m/psh,m=0.40-1.00). The installation of rock
bolts, contributes to the decrease of the
displacements and moments in the shotcrete
shell during the excavation, but also leads to the
increase of the final lining load, since it
increases the equivalent stiffness of the
temporary support section. Finally, the role of
the face treatment measures should be taken into
account in final lining design, even if they are
removed during the construction (e.g. fibreglass
nails).
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to acknowledge the
contribution of M. Demerouti, Civil Engineer,
M.Sc. and I.I. Barbakou, Civil Engineer, M.Sc.
to the development of the 3D numerical model.
REFERENCES
Bakogiannis, I. 2004. Actions, methods and analysis
models of tunnel final lining. In: T. Tasios (ed.)
Tunnel final lining analysis and dimensioning.
Athens: Greek Tunnelling Society, p.25-50 (in greek).
Cantieni L. and Anagnostou G. 2011. On a paradox of
elasto-plastic tunnel analysis. Rock Mechanics and
Rock Engineering, v.44, No. 2, p.129-147
Carranza-Torres, C. 2009. Analytical and numerical study
of the mechanics of rockbolt reinforcement around
tunnels in rock masses. Rock Mechanics and Rock
Engineering. v.42, p.175-228.
Chern, J.C., Shiao, F.Y. and Yu, C.W. 1998. An empirical
safety criterion for tunnel construction. In:
Proceedings of the Regional Symposium on
Sedimendary Rock Engineering. Taipei. p.222-227.
El Naggar, H., Hinchberger, S.D. and Lo, K.Y. 2008. A
closed-form solution for composite tunnel linings in a
homogenous infinite isotropic elastic medium.
Canadian Geotechnical Journal. v.45, p.266-287.
Fortsakis, P. 2012. Investigation of the static interaction
of the surrounding soil/rock with the tunnel final
lining. Thesis (PhD in Civil Engineering) - National
Technical University of Athens (NTUA), School of
Civil Engineering, Department of Geotechnical
Engineering, Athens, 466p. (in greek).
 Proceedings of the World Tunnel Congress 2014 – Tunnels for a better Life. Foz do Iguaçu, Brazil.

Fortsakis, P., Chortis, P., Prountzopoulos, G. and Engineering. v.3, p.891-910. doi: 10.1007/s10706-
Kavvadas, M. 2013a. Investigation of the loads on the 012-9570.
primary lining for tunnels excavated with face support Prountzopoulos, G. 2012. Investigation of the excavation
or improvement. In: Proceedings of the World Tunnel face stability in shallow tunnels. Thesis (PhD in Civil
Congress 2013, Underground -The way to the future Engineering) - National Technical University of
(Anagnostou, G. and Ehrbar, H. (eds)). Geneva, Athens (NTUA), School of Civil Engineering,
Switzerland, p.661-668. Department of Geotechnical Engineering, Athens,
Fortsakis, P., Litsas, D. and Kavvadas, M. 2013b. 452p. (in greek).
Reliability analysis of unreinforced tunnel final lining. Thomas, A. 2009. Sprayed concrete lined tunnels. New
In: Proceedings of EURO:TUN 2013, 2nd York: Taylor & Francis, 235p.
International Conference on Computational Methods Oke, J., Vlachopoulos, N. and Diederichs, M. 2012.
in Tunnelling (Meschke, M., Eberhardsteiner, J., Improved input parameters and numerical analysis
Schanz, T., Soga, K. and Thewes, M. (eds)). Bochum, techniques for temporary support of underground
Germany, p. 813-820. excavations in weak rock. In: Proceedings of RockEng
Franzen, T., Garshol, K.F. and Tomisawa, N. 2001. - 21st Canadian Rock Mechanics Symposium.
Sprayed concrete for final linings: ITA working group Edmonton, Canada.
report. Tunnelling and Underground Space Oke, J., Vlachopoulos, N. and Marinos, V. 2013.
Technology, v.16, p.295-309. Umbrella arch nomenclature and selection
Hoek, E., Carranza-Torres, C. and Corkum, B. Hoek- methodology for temporary support systems for the
Brown failure criterion. 2002. In: Proceedings of the design and construction of tunnels. Geotechnical and
5th North American Rock Mechanics Symposium and Geological Engineering. Published online 27
17th Tunnelling Association of Canada: NARMS-TAC. September 2013. DOI 10.1007/s10706-013-9697-4.
Toronto, Canada. v.1, p.267-273. Yiouta-Mitra, P. Gkekas, S. and Sofianos, A. 2010.
Hoek, E., Carranza-Torres, C., Diederichs, M. and Parametric analyses of tunnel final lining loads. In:
Corkum, B. 2008. Integration of geotechnical and Proceedings of the 6th Hellenic Conference on
structural design in tunneling. The Kersten Lecture. Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental. Athens:
Hudson, J.A. and Harrison J.P. 2000. Engineering rock Technical Chamber of Greece. Volos, Greece, v.2,
mechanics. An introduction to the principles, 1st edn. p.595-602. (in greek)
Oxford: Elsevier Science Ltd.
International Tunnelling Association (ITA), Working
Group N°12: Sprayed Concrete Use. 2010. ITA Report
Nο 005. Shotcrete for rock support. A summary report
on state-of-the-art.
Kolymbas, D. 2008. Tunnelling and Tunnel Mechanics. A
rational approach to tunnelling. Berlin: Springer.
439p.
Lee, S., Kim, D., Ryu, J., Lee, S., Kim, J., Kim, H. and
Choi, M. 2006. An experimental study on the
durability of high performance shotcrete for
permanent tunnel support. Tunnelling and
Underground Space Technology. v.21, p.431.
Lee, S.P., Kim, D.H., Ryu, J.H., Yu, J.Y., Lee, S.D., Han,
S.H., Choi, M.S. and Park, C. 2005. An experimental
study on the development of high performance
shotcrete for permanent tunnel support. In:
Proceedings of the ITA-AITES 2005 World Tunnel
Congress, Underground Space Use: Analysis of the
Past and Lessons for the Future (Erdem and Solak
(eds)). Istanbul, Turkey, London: Taylor & Francis
Group. v.2, p. 455-461.
Marinos, P. and Hoek, E. 2000. GSI: a geologically
friendly tool for rock mass strength estimation. In:
Proceedings of the GeoEng2000 at the International
Conference on Geotechnical and Geological
Engineering. Melbourne, Australia. Lancaster:
Technomic publishers, p.1422-1446.
Marinos, V., Marinos, P. and Hoek, E. 2005. The
geological strength index: applications and limitations.
Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the Environment.
v.64, p.55-65.
Marinos, V., Prountzopoulos, G., Fortsakis, P.,
Koumoutsakos, D. and Papouli, D. 2013. Tunnel
Information and Analysis System: A geotechnical
database for tunnels. Geotechnical and Geological

10